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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 01/22/2026 which amended claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 15 and 20-21, cancelled claim 6 and added new claim 24. Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are currently pending in the application for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2020/0305262).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Yamamoto teaches a projection device (Figure 10; Projection-Type Video Display Apparatus 400), comprising:
a driver (Figure 1; First Drive Circuit 110) configured to generate a driving current signal (Figure 1; First Control Signal DRV) according to a control signal (see Paragraphs [0021] and [0029]);
a light emitting module (Figure 1; Light Source Circuit 10) coupled to the driver (Figure 1; First Drive Circuit 110) and configured to provide an output light beam in a target brightness value range in response to the driving current signal (see Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]), wherein the target brightness value range corresponds to a target driving current value range of the driving current signal (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; wherein it is disclosed that the light source circuit 10 includes a light emission element 15 which is driven by a current ILD, and emits light with brightness according to a current value of the current ILD);
a current sensor (Figure 1; Current Detection Circuit 123) coupled to the light emitting module (Figure 1; Light Source Circuit 10) and configured to sense a driving current flowing through the light emitting module (Figure 1; Light Source Circuit 10) to generate a sensing signal (see Paragraph [0034]); and
a controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) coupled to the current sensor (Figure 1; Current Detection Circuit 123) and the driver (Figure 1; First Drive Circuit 110) and configured to provide a current calibration parameter and a first control parameter (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]), generate the control signal (Figure 1; First Control Signal DRV) according to the current calibration parameter and the first control parameter (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]), and determine whether a current value of the driving current flowing through the light emitting module (Figure 1; Light Source Circuit 10) is in the target driving current value range according to the sensing signal (see Figure 1; Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]),
wherein when the current value of the driving current is not in the target driving current value range, the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) changes the first control parameter to adjust the control signal (see Paragraphs [0053]- [0054]; wherein it is disclosed that when the potential difference across the first resistor RCS becomes large, the detection voltage DTQ output by the current detection circuit 123 becomes large. The detection circuit 131 compares the detection voltage DTQ with a reference voltage and that when the potential difference across the first resistor RCS exceeds a predetermined value, the detection circuit 131 changes the detection signal DETC from a low level to a high level. When the detection signal DETC is at a high level, the operation control circuit 133 outputs the signal DRVB of a low level, and based on the signal DRVB, the first drive circuit 110 outputs the first control signal DRV of a low level. That is, when the detection signal DETC is at a high level, the first switching element 11 is turned off regardless of the logic level of the PWM signal DCS. This state is referred to as a drive stop state), so that the current value of the driving current is controlled within the target driving current value range (see Paragraphs [0053]- [0054]; wherein it is disclosed that when the light emission element 15 is short-circuited to the ground at time tO, the current ILD flowing through the light emission element 15 increases, and thus a potential difference across the first resistor RCS becomes large. The detection circuit 131 detects whether or not a potential difference across the first resistor RCS is larger than a predetermined value. Specifically, when the potential difference across the first resistor RCS becomes large, the detection voltage DTQ output by the current detection circuit 123 becomes large and that when the potential difference across the first resistor RCS exceeds a predetermined value, the detection circuit 131 changes the detection signal DETC from a low level to a high level. When the detection signal DETC is at a high level, the operation control circuit 133 outputs the signal DRVB of a low level, and based on the signal DRVB, the first drive circuit 110 outputs the first control signal DRV of a low level).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Ikegami teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as detailed above.
Ikegami further teaches a light valve (Figure 10; Display Device 340) coupled to the controller (see Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300), wherein the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) is configured to control the light valve (Figure 10; Display Device 340) to convert the output light beam to generate an image light beam (see Paragraph [0074]; wherein it is disclosed that the processing device 300 transmits the image data stored in the storage section 320 to the display device 340). fig. 5
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Ikegami teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as detailed above.
Ikegami further teaches the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) is configured to perform multiplication on the current calibration parameter and the first control parameter to generate the control signal (see Paragraph [0034]; wherein it is disclosed that the current detection circuit 123 outputs a detection voltage DTQ by multiplying a potential difference CSP−CSN=RCSxILD across the first resistor RCS by a given gain).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Ikegami teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as detailed above.
Ikegami further teaches the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) is configured to sample the sensing signal based on a sampling cycle (see Figure 5; wherein the waveform representing the detection signal DETC shows that it is not constantly sampled, but is based on a cycle).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Ikegami teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as detailed above.
Ikegami further teaches when the current value of the driving current is determined to be greater than a maximum value of the target driving current value range, the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) is configured to reduce the first control parameter (see Paragraphs [0052]-[0054]), and when the current value of the driving current is determined to be less than a minimum value of the target driving current value range, the controller (Figures 1 and 10; Light Emission Control Circuit 101 and Processing Device 300) is configured to increase the first control parameter (see Paragraphs [0052]-[0054]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2020/0305262) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hada et al (US 2015/0092118; hereinafter referred to as Hada).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose that the light emitting module comprises a plurality of light emitting units, the driving current comprises a plurality of sub-driving currents, the light emitting units are configured to provide output light beams of different colors in response to a current value of the corresponding sub-driving current among the sub-driving currents respectively, the current sensor is configured to sense the sub-driving currents flowing through the light emitting units to generate a plurality of sensing values corresponding to the sub-driving currents in the sensing signal.
Hada discloses a projection device (Figure 1), comprising: a driver (Figure 4; LID Driving Means 101) configured to generate a driving current signal according to a control signal (see Paragraph [0057]); a light emitting module (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue LIDs 11, 12 and 13) coupled to the driver (Figure 4; LID Driving Means 101) and configured to provide an output light beam (see Paragraph [0057]); wherein
the light emitting module (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue LIDs 11, 12 and 13) comprises a plurality of light emitting units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue LIDs 11, 12 and 13), the driving current comprises a plurality of sub-driving currents (see Paragraphs [0057]-[0058]), the light emitting units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue LIDs 11, 12 and 13) are configured to provide output light beams of different colors in response to a current value of the corresponding sub-driving current among the sub-driving currents respectively (see Paragraphs [0057]-[0058]), the current sensor (Figure 4; Current Detection Means 102) is configured to sense the sub-driving currents flowing through the light emitting units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue LIDs 11, 12 and 13) to generate a plurality of sensing values corresponding to the sub-driving currents in the sensing signal (see Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the projection device of Yamamoto such that the light emitting module comprises a plurality of light emitting units, the driving current comprises a plurality of sub-driving currents, the light emitting units provide output light beams of different colors in response to a current value of the corresponding sub-driving current among the sub-driving currents respectively, the current sensor senses the sub-driving currents flowing through the light emitting units to generate a plurality of sensing values corresponding to the sub-driving currents in the sensing signal, as taught by Hada, because doing so would make it possible to quickly raise the temperature of the laser light source under the low temperature environment and stable image output can be quickly performed in a configuration in which the cost of parts is curbed (see Hada Paragraph [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 18-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require during an initial setting period of the projection device, the controller calculates the current calibration parameter according to a second control parameter, during the initial setting period, the controller generates the control signal according to the second control parameter, and the driver generates the driving current signal according to the control signal, and the second control parameter is a value associated with a duty cycle of the control signal.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claim 1 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Claims 9-12 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made by virtue of their dependency upon claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require determining a current value decreasing amount of the current value of the driving current in a preset time length according to the sensing signal; and reducing the first control parameter according to the current value decreasing amount.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claim 13 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require during an initial setting period of the projection device, calculating the current calibration parameter according to a second control parameter.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claim 13 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Claims 20-23 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made by virtue of their dependency upon claim 19.
Claim 24 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding Claim 24, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require the controller determines a current value decreasing amount of the current value of the driving current in a preset time length according to the sensing signal, and reduces the first control parameter according to the current value decreasing amount.
These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 24 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges on pages 18-20 of the arguments filed 01/22/2026 that the Yamamoto reference fails to teach, suggest or render obvious that the controller determines during operation whether the current value of the driving current is in a "target driving current value range" based on the sensing signal and, when the current value of the driving current is not in the target driving current value range, "changes the first control parameter" to adjust the control signal, so that the current value of the driving current is restored to the target driving current value range through a digital calibration control logic. Furthermore, Yamamoto does not disclose the dual-parameter architecture of the present application, including a "current calibration parameter PCC" and a "first control parameter PC1," nor the mechanism by which the control signal is generated through calculations based on these parameters.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments presented by the applicant.
In response to argument A, wherein the applicant introduces the argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a "target driving current value range" based on the sensing signal and, when the current value of the driving current is not in the target driving current value range, "changes the first control parameter" to adjust the control signal, so that the current value of the driving current is restored to the target driving current value range through a digital calibration control logic) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Yamamoto reference discloses both a current which is feedback controlled as well as a current which increases as a result of a short-circuit and is then brought to zero via a power stop signal. The present claim language describes maintaining a driving current within a target driving current value range, but does not detail the bounds of said range or preclude the currents which are targeted during a feedback controlled state or short circuit state. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Yamamoto discloses that the current value of the driving current is controlled within the target driving current value range.
All of the arguments presented by the applicant have been considered in their entirety, but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights