To 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “PROJECTION SYSTEM AND PROJECTOR,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Objection/s to the 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 “first reflection surface, the second reflection surface, and the third reflection surface each hav[ing] a shape rotationally symmetric with respect to a second optical axis of the second optical system as an axis of rotation” 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9, which depends on claims 8, 7 and 3, recites “the first optical axis and the second optical axis coincide with each other.” Claim 8, which indirectly depends on claim, 7 and 3, recites “the first reflection surface, the second reflection surface, and the third reflection surface each have a shape rotationally symmetric with respect to a second optical axis of the second optical system as an axis of rotation.” Claim 7, which depends on claim 3 recites “the plurality of lenses each have a shape rotationally symmetric with respect to the first optical axis as an axis of rotation.” Claim 3 appears to be directed to the embodiments shown in Fig. 3, 5, and 7 and claim 3 recites “the beams reflected off the first reflective optical system pass through the first lens and reach the second reflective optical system.”
The above limitations on the arrangement of claims 3, 7, and 8 mean first reflective optical system and the second reflective optical system are offset from the first optical axis as shown in Fig. 3, 5, and 7. Since the first reflective optical system and the second reflective optical system are offset from the first optical axis it cannot be rotationally symmetric with respect to the second optical axis, which coincide with the first optical axis, of the second optical system as an axis of rotation, as limited by claim 9. Fig. 3, 5, and 7 show that the first and second reflective optical systems have a shape rotationally asymmetric with respect to the second optical axis.
For the purpose of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as “each have a shape rotationally asymmetric with respect to a second optical axis of the second optical system as an axis of rotation” in order to provide a workable interpretation of claim 9.
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.
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 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20190222728 A1) in view of Nishikawa (US 20070184368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a projection system (Fig. 1-10) comprising a first optical system (L2) and a second optical system (M2, M3, L1 and M1) sequentially arranged from a reduction side (IM; Table 1, 2, and 3) toward an enlargement side (OB, Table 1, 2, and 3), the first optical system (L2) formed of a plurality of lenses, wherein the first optical system (L2) has positive power (forming IM2), the second optical system (M2, M3, L1 and M1) includes a first reflective optical system (M2) and a third reflective optical system (M1) sequentially arranged from a side facing the first optical system (L2) along an optical path of beams output from the first optical system (L2), the first reflective optical system (M2) has a first reflection surface (Surface no. 8, Table 1, Surface no. 9, Table 2 and 3) having a concave aspherical shape (Table 1, 2, 3; [0045]), the third reflective optical system (M1) has a third reflection surface (Surface no. 1, Table 1, 2 and 3) having a convex aspherical shape (Table 1, 2, 3; [0045]), and the projection system satisfies Conditional Expression (1) below
|f1|>|f3| (|fM2| < |fM1|; Table 5);
(1) where f1 represents a focal length (-85.064/2; Table 1; -43.136/2, Table 2; -48.913, Table 3; fM2, Table 5) of the first reflective optical system (M2) and f3 represents a focal length (-61.242/2, Table 1; -41.479/2, Table 2; -34.307/2, Table 3; fM1, Table 5) of the third reflective optical system (M1).
Aoki does not teach a second reflective optical system between the first and a third reflective optical systems with a second reflection surface having a concave shape or a planar shape, |f2|>|f1|>|f3|; f2 represents a focal length of the second reflective optical system.
Nishikawa teaches having a planar mirror to fold the optical path ([0130], [0133], [0141], [0144], [0155], [0157], [0166]) such that when combined with Aoki would results in the planar mirror being between the first and a third reflective optical systems, where |f2|>|f1|>|f3|; f2 represents a focal length of the second reflective optical system. (Focal length of the planar mirror is infinity.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Aoki with Nishikawa; because it allows folding the optical path to make the projection system more compact ([0130], [0133], [0141], [0144], [0155], [0157], [0166] of Nishikawa).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki further teaches a maximum effective radius of the third reflection surface (Surface no. 1, Table 1, 2 and 3) is smaller than 150 mm (Table 1, 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aoki and Nishikawa consequently results in the plurality of lenses include a first lens (Surface no. 2 and 3, Table 1) having positive power and disposed at a position closest to the enlargement side (OB, Table 1, 2, and 3), the first lens (Surface no. 2 and 3) is disposed between the first reflective optical system (M2) and the second reflective optical system (planar mirror) in a first direction along a first optical axis of the first optical system (L2), and the beams reflected off the first reflective optical system (M2) pass through the first lens (Surface no. 2 and 3) and reach the second reflective optical system (planar mirror).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki further teaches the plurality of lenses (of L2) each have a shape rotationally symmetric with respect to the first optical axis as an axis of rotation (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Aoki further teaches the first reflection surface (Surface no. 8, Table 1, Surface no. 9, Table 2 and 3), the second reflection surface (planar mirror), and the third reflection surface (Surface no. 1, Table 1, 2 and 3) each have a shape rotationally asymmetric with respect to a second optical axis of the second optical system (M2, M3, L1 and M1) as an axis of rotation (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Aoki further teaches the first optical axis and the second optical axis coincide with each other (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki further teaches an image formation unit (IM; [0040]) that forms a projection image in a reduction-side image formation plane of the projection system (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10; [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, neither Aoki nor Nishikawa teaches “the first lens is disposed between the second reflective optical system and the third reflective optical system in the first direction, and the beams reflected off the second reflective optical system pass through the first lens and reach the third reflective optical system” (claim 4); “the plurality of lenses include a second lens disposed on the reduction side of the first lens, the second lens has a first portion on one side of the first optical axis and a second portion on another side thereof, the first portion is a light transmissive portion that functions as part of the first optical system, and the second portion is a reflective portion that functions as the second reflection surface” (claim 5); or “the plurality of lenses include a second lens disposed on the reduction side of the first lens, and the second reflection surface is disposed between the first lens and the second lens in the first direction” (claim 6). Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 4, 5, or 6 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20200166737 A1, US 20200033570 A1, US 20190107696 A1, US 20190094670 A1, US 20200142291 A1, US 20180246302 A1, US 20100208364 A1, US 20100002321 A1, US 20090168031 A1, US 20080055899 A1, US 20070195290 A1, US 20070002284 A1, US 20060221307 A1, US 20060066760 A1, US 20050280778 A1, S 20040184009 A1, US 20040174611 A1, US 20040156117 A1, US 20040027662 A1, and US 20030090794 A1, disclose projection systems having refractive optical group/s follow by reflective optical group/s having three or more reflective elements.
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