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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "d denoting a distance on the first axis between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface" (only d1 and d2 are shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 2-4 and 6-8, the sentences recite “a normal direction thereof is tilted in a certain angular range" (Claim 2), "wherein the polarized light is parallel light" (Claim 3), "in a case where parallel light is made virtually incident" (Claim 3), "an odd-order aspherical surface" (Claim 6), and "is disposed outward of the second reflecting member" (Claim 7) and seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the phrases “certain angular range," "parallel light," "in a case...made virtually incident," "odd-order," and "is disposed outward of” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
In the instance case, “certain angular range” is vague and provides no definite numerical or measurable limit while leaving the angular range undefined (e.g., a “certain angular range” can be interpreted as any angular range or even a range encompassing zero since any relative terminology applies). “[W]herein the polarized light is parallel light” is unclear, for “parallel light” can refer to the polarization direction, the propagation direction, or collimation which makes the optical state ambiguous. “[I]n a case where parallel light is made virtually incident” is also unclear, for “virtually incident” could be simulated, reflected, or optically extrapolated incidence so its physical meaning is uncertain. Furthermore, “in a case” implies a contingent limitation reciting a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the case scenario and/or element is a necessary or optional aspect of the claimed invention (see Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 & MPEP § 2111.04 for contingent limitations). “[A]n odd-order aspherical surface” lacks clear reference to which polynomial or term it utilized (e.g., third, fifth, etc.) so the shape specification for the reflecting surfaces is indefinite. “[I]s disposed outward of the second reflecting member” also utilizes relative terminology without a defined frame of reference so the positioning of the prism with respect to the second reflecting member is unclear (e.g., “is disposed outward of” can be interpretated as the prism being located anywhere away from the second reflecting member or the prism being located on the second reflecting member but facing away from it in any direction).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets these claim limitations as the claimed subject matter introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of an optical system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 3, 5-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito JP 2011215528 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, Ito discloses an optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) on which polarized light polarized (light modulation element 3 modulates illumination light beam to generate projection light beam; [0024]) by a movable mirror (light modulation element 3 comprising movable mirrors; [0026]) is incident (fig. 2; the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
a first reflecting member (sub-reflector 19 of light source unit 6; [0027]) that is rotationally symmetric (rotationally symmetric when viewed from optical axes L, L1, L2 as seen in fig. 2b) with respect to a first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) and has a first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) that reflects the polarized light (illumination device 2 providing polarization conversion optical system; [0022]; fig. 2a-c) to emit reflected light as first reflected light (L2; fig. 2a-c); and
a second reflecting member (main reflector 18; [0027]) that is rotationally symmetric (rotationally symmetric when viewed from optical axes L, L1, L2 as seen in fig. 2b) with respect to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) and has a second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) that reflects the first reflected light (L2; fig. 2a-c) to emit reflected light as second reflected light (L1; fig. 2a-c),
wherein a cross-sectional shape ([0023]; fig. 6a) of the first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) cut along a plane parallel to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) is concave (configured with reflecting mirror having a spherically recessed reflecting surface; [0047]),
a cross-sectional shape ([0023]; fig. 5a) of the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) cut along the plane parallel to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) is convex,
an optical path (fig. 2b) of the first reflected light (L2; fig. 2a-c) is parallel to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c), and
an optical path (fig. 2c) of the second reflected light (L1; fig. 2a-c) is directed outward from the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c).
With respect to Claim 3, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1,
wherein the polarized light (illumination device 2 providing polarization conversion optical system; [0022]; fig. 2a-c) is parallel light (through collimating lens 16; [0025]), and
a converged position (light beams emitted from light source units 6, 7 along light source optical axes L1 and L2 converted into convergent light beams and are incident on the optical axis conversion element 8; [0026]) of the first reflected light (L2; fig. 2a-c) and a converged position (converged position from light-emitting portion 26 of light-emitting/arc tube 17; [0028-29]) of a virtual image of reflected light (as seen in fig. 2b), which is reflected by the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]; having desired convergence angles by action of main reflector; [0026]) in a case where parallel light (through collimating lens 16; [0025]) is made virtually incident on the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0028-30]) from the optical path (fig. 2a-c) of the second reflected light (L1; fig. 2a-c), coincide with each other (light source optical axes L1 and L2 coincide with each other since main reflector 18 is aligned with arc tube 17 so that focal position of main reflector 18 coincides with position of the light emitting portion 26; [0032]).
With respect to Claim 5, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1,
wherein a shape ([0023]; fig. 5a) of any one of the first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) or the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) is a hyperbolic surface (main reflector 18 and reflecting surface 18a have half-split shape; [0031]).
With respect to Claim 6, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1,
wherein a shape ([0023]; fig. 5a) of any one of the first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) or the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) is an odd-order aspherical surface (main reflector 18 and reflecting surface 18a have half-split shape; [0031]).
With respect to Claim 9, Ito discloses an optical scanning apparatus (projector 1; [0024]) comprising: the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1;
a movable mirror (plurality of movable mirrors; [0026]) device (light modulation element 3; [0026]) that has the movable mirror (plurality of movable mirrors; [0026]); and
a light source (light source units 6 and 7; [0026]) that emits light to be incident (illumination light beam incident on the light modulation element 3; [0026]) on the movable mirror (light modulation element 3 comprising plurality of movable mirrors; [0026]).
With respect to Claim 10, Ito discloses the optical scanning apparatus (projector 1; [0024]) according to claim 9,
wherein the light is incident (illumination light beam incident on the light modulation element 3; [0026]) on the movable mirror (light modulation element 3 comprising plurality of movable mirrors; [0026]) along the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c).
With respect to Claim 11, Ito discloses the optical scanning apparatus (projector 1; [0024]) according to claim 9,
wherein the second reflected light (L1; fig. 2a-c) is emitted as scanning light in all directions (emitted projection light beam emitted, reflected, and converted within projector 1; [0026], wherein main reflector 18 has half-split shape in which a reflector covers entire circumference i.e., 360 degrees centered on light source optical axes L1 and L2; [0031]) around the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito JP 2011215528 A (see machine translation) in view of Yonekubo JP 2015145973 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 2, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1.
Ito does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the movable mirror (plurality of movable mirrors; [0026]) rotationally moves in a state in which a normal direction thereof is tilted in a certain angular range with respect to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c).
However, in another field of endeavor, Yonekubo teaches a virtual image display device and optical element ([0009]) wherein an optical scanning unit (42; [0033]) comprises a movable mirror unit (11; [0033]) that oscillates (rotates back and forth within angular range through vibration system; [0033]) in a state in which a normal direction thereof (as seen in fig. 5) is tilted in at an inclination angle range (inclination angle θ of the magnetization direction of magnet 16 with respect to the x1 axis not limited, is 30° or more and 60° or less, providing magnet 16 in this manner leads to movable mirror portion 11 rotated smoothly and reliably around the x1 axis; [0056]; movable mirror portion 11 rotates around y1 axis at frequency of drive signal v1; [0066]) with respect to a first axis (y1 axis; [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination device of Ito to include the technical feature of an oscillating mirror, for the purpose of increasing the rotation angle of a movable mirror and providing a movable mirror that rotates smoothly and reliably around an optical axis, as taught by Yonekubo ([0056] & [0059]).
Claims 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito JP 2011215528 A (see machine translation) in view of another embodiment of Ito.
With respect to Claim 4, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 3,
wherein f1 denoting a distance from the first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) to the converged position (light beams emitted from light source units 6, 7 along light source optical axes L1 and L2 converted into convergent light beams and are incident on the optical axis conversion element 8; [0026]) of the first reflected light (L2; fig. 2a-c), f2 denoting a distance from the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) to the converged position (converged position from light-emitting portion 26 of light-emitting/arc tube 17; [0028-29]) of the virtual image, and d denoting a distance on the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) between the first reflecting surface (sub-reflector surface 19c; [0047]) and the second reflecting surface (reflecting surface 18a of main reflector 18; [0030]) are
within a range of 0.9 × d ≤ f1 - f2 ≤ 1.1 × d (the difference between surface 19c converging to conversion element 8 along L2 and surface 18a converging to conversion element 8 along L1 is about the same distance apart as the distance between surfaces 19c of the sub-reflector and 18a of the main reflector along the L axis; as seen in fig. 2a-c & 3).
Ito does not appear to explicitly teach the conditional expression of 0.9 × d ≤ f1 - f2 ≤ 1.1 × d.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale the two focal points to be spaced about the same distance apart as the two reflecting surfaces themselves and within roughly twenty percent, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because another embodiment of Ito further teaches changing the arrangements and distances of elements (e.g., two light source optical axes L1 and L2 can be aligned at a closer distance; [0068]) within the illumination device, for the purpose of suppressing light generation and obtaining illumination light with a smaller beam diameter and narrower angular distribution, as taught by Ito ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 7, Ito discloses the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 1.
The first embodiment of Ito does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: a prism that is rotationally symmetric with respect to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c), is disposed outward of the second reflecting member (main reflector 18; [0027]), and refracts the second reflected light (L1; fig. 2a-c).
However, in another embodiment, Ito further teaches a polarization separation prism array (43; [0059]; fig. 10a-c) that is rotationally symmetric (rectangular shape, and thus, having rotational symmetry as seen in fig. 10a-c) with respect to the first axis (polarization conversion
optical system 45 aligned along illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 9a-c), is disposed outward of the second reflecting member (disposed outward of, away from main reflector 18; [0027]), and refracts the second reflected light (L1; fig. 9a-c; polarization separation
direction p is set to x-axis direction perpendicular to direction in which light source optical axes L1, L2 of each light source unit 6, 7 are aligned; [0060]; fig. 10b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination device of the first embodiment of Ito to include the technical feature of arranging a prism along illumination optical axes, for the purpose of improving light utilization efficiency for light polarization when displaying an image with a projector, as taught by Ito ([0060]).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of the first and third embodiment of Ito teaches the optical system (illumination device 2; [0023-24]; reference to fig. 1-6) according to claim 7.
The first embodiment of Ito does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein a cross-sectional shape of the prism cut along the plane parallel to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 2a-c) is a triangle.
However, in another embodiment, Ito further teaches the polarization separation prism array (43; [0059]; fig. 10a-c) wherein a cross-sectional shape of the prism (fig. 9a-c & 10b) cut along the plane parallel (fig. 9a-c) to the first axis (illumination optical axis L; [0026]; fig. 9a-c) is a triangular (polarization separation prism array 43 having triangular shape as seen in fig. 10b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the illumination device of the first embodiment of Ito to include the technical feature of arranging a prism along illumination optical axes, for the purpose of improving light utilization efficiency for light polarization when displaying an image with a projector, as taught by Ito ([0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Akiyama JP 2011129448 A (see machine translation) discloses a lighting apparatus and projector similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 27 October 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872