DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
The filing on 02/03/2026 amended claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-14, 17-20 and cancelled claim 11. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 12.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 02/03/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - AIA 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20070242231 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Chen teaches a projection apparatus (Fig. 7; [0034]) comprising: an illumination system (Fig. 3 and 6) configured to generate an illumination light beam (302) and comprising: two light source modules (320a/b/c) each comprising a plurality of light sources and configured to provide a plurality of light beams; two light guiding modules (326, 327 for 320a/b/c) respectively disposed on transmission paths of the plurality of light beams generated by the two light source modules (320a/b/c), and the two light guiding modules configured to respectively guide the plurality of light beam to form a first and a second guiding light beams (321a/b/c); a first reflector (332/336) disposed on a transmission path of the first guiding light beam (321a/c); and a light homogenization element (310) configured to receive the first and second guiding light beams (321a/b/c), wherein the first guiding light beam (321a/c) is reflected toward the light homogenization element (310) by the first reflector (332/336), the second guiding light beam (321b) is transmitted to the light homogenization element (310) without passing through the first reflector; a light valve (420) disposed on a transmission path of the illumination light beam and configured to convert the illumination light beam into an image light beam; and a projection lens (430) disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam and configured to project the image light beam out of the projection apparatus ([0034]), and wherein a first incident direction of the first guiding light beam (321a/c) from the first reflector toward the light homogenization element (310) and a second incident direction of the second guiding light beam (321b) from one of the two light guiding modules toward the light homogenization element (310) define an angle.
Chen does not explicitly teach the angle is not zero degree.
It is immediately obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art that having the direction of the first guiding light beam (321a/c) from the first reflector toward the light homogenization element (310) and a second incident direction of the second guiding light beam (321b) from one of the two light guiding modules toward the light homogenization element (310) being perfectly parallel, i.e., the angle being exactly zero, only exists in the abstract. Manufacturing tolerance allows for the angle being not zero.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Chen further teaches the first guiding light beam (321a/c) is incident to the first reflector (332/336) at an incident angle and emitted from the first reflector (332/336) at an emitted angle, and a sum of the incident angle and the emitted angle is less than 90 degrees.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Chen further teaches the second guiding light beam (321b) is vertically incident to the light homogenization element (310; Fig. 3 and 6).
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20230259012 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Sasaki teaches a projection apparatus (50; Fig. 1-12) comprising: an illumination system (1) configured to generate an illumination light beam (L) and comprising: two light source modules (LS1/LS2) each comprising a plurality of light sources (11) and configured to provide a plurality of light beams; two light guiding modules (12-18 for LS1/LS2) respectively disposed on transmission paths of the plurality of light beams generated by the two light source modules (LS1/LS2), and the two light guiding modules configured to respectively guide the plurality of light beam to form a first and a second guiding light beams (F1/F2); a first reflector (2A) disposed on a transmission path of the first guiding light beam (F1); and a light homogenization element (3) configured to receive the first and second guiding light beams (F1/F2), wherein the first guiding light beam (F1) is reflected toward the light homogenization element (3) by the first reflector (2A), the second guiding light beam (F2) is transmitted to the light homogenization element (3) without passing through the first reflector (2A); a light valve (54) disposed on a transmission path of the illumination light beam and configured to convert the illumination light beam into an image light beam; and a projection lens (52) disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam and configured to project the image light beam out of the projection apparatus, and wherein a first incident direction of the first guiding light beam (F1) from the first reflector toward the light homogenization element (3) and a second incident direction of the second guiding light beam (F2) from one of the two light guiding modules toward the light homogenization element (3) define an angle.
Sasaki does not explicitly teach the angle is not zero degree.
It is immediately obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art that having the direction of the first guiding light beam (F1) from the first reflector toward the light homogenization element (3) and a second incident direction of the second guiding light beam (F2) from one of the two light guiding modules toward the light homogenization element (3) being perfectly parallel, i.e., the angle being exactly zero, only exists in the abstract. Manufacturing tolerance allows for the angle being not zero.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Sasaki further teaches the first and second guiding light beams (F1/F2) are respectively emitted from the two light guiding modules (12-18 for 320b/c) in transmission directions substantially perpendicular to each other ([0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki further teaches main optical axes of the two light source modules (LS1/LS2) are perpendicular to each other ([0028]).
Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Okuda (US 20130162956 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Chen does not explicitly teach each of the light guiding modules (326, 327 for 320a/b/c) comprises a color separating mirror and a second reflector, at least one of the light beams emitted by each of the light source modules (320a/b/c) is passed through the color separating mirror, and the other of the light beams emitted by each of the light source modules (320a/b/c) are sequentially reflected by the second reflector, reflected by the color separating mirror.
Okuda teaches the light guiding modules comprises a color separating mirror (10) and a second reflector (240), at least one of the light beams emitted by the light source module is passed through the color separating mirror (10), and the other of the light beams emitted by each of the light source modules are sequentially reflected by the second reflector (240), reflected by the color separating mirror (10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Okuda; because it allows using plurality light sources in a specific beam width.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Chen further teaches the first reflector (332/336) is non-perpendicular and non-parallel to any one of the color separating mirrors (326/327).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combination of Chen and Okuda consequently results in the first reflector (332/336 of Chen) is non-perpendicular and non-parallel to any one of the second reflectors (240 of Okuda).
Claims 7, 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lin (US 20060146296 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Chen does not explicitly teach the first and second guiding light beams (321a/b/c) are incident to the light homogenization element (310) at respective incident angles, and the incident angles are not equal to each other.
Lin teaches the two guiding light beams (OB1/OB2) are incident to the light homogenization element (130) at respective incident angles, and the incident angles are not equal to each other (Fig. 8 and 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Lin; because it allows using the TIR effects reducing light loss.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chen does not teach light spots of the first and second guiding light beams (321a/b/c) incident to the light homogenization element (310) being overlapped.
Lin teaches light spots of the two guiding light beams (OB1/OB2) incident to the light homogenization element (130) being overlapped.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Lin; because it allows using the TIR effects reducing light loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment/s.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights