Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/521,424

PROJECTION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Examiner
HOWARD, RYAN D
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Acknowledgement made of amendment filed 3/03/2026. Claim Rejections - 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 (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 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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushiro (US 2018/0013995 A1 in view of Nakamura (US 2020/0304762 A1) and further in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2015/0123959 A1). Regarding claim 1, Mizushiro teaches a first projector (10A, figure 1) including a first electo-optical device (paragraph 0087; liquid crystal panels) configured to emit first image light representing a first screen (2A, figure 1), and A first projection optical member (15, figure 6; paragraph 0088) configured to project the first image light; A second projector (10B, figure 1) including A second electro-optical device (paragraph 0087; liquid crystal panels) configured to emit second image light representing a second screen (2B, figure 1), and A second projection optical member (15, figure 6, paragraph 0088) configured to project the second image light; A camera (30, figure 1; paragraph 0056) configured to capture an image of the first image light projected by the first projection optical member and the second image light projected by the second projection optical member (paragraph 0057); and The image captured by the camera indicates that there is a first overlapping region (3A, figure 1) in which the first image light is projected by the first projection optical member and the second image light projected by the second projection optical member overlap each other along a first direction (vertical overlap is described in paragraph 0053). Mizushiro does not specify a first and second electro-optical devices are updated by vertical scanning, a first and second optical path shifting element configured to shift an mission optical path of the first and second image light respectively; and a vertical scanning direction setting unit, wherein when there is a first overlapping region in which the first image light projected by the first projection optical member and the second image light projected by the second projection optical member overlap each other along a first direction parallel to a direction of the vertical scanning, the vertical scanning direction setting unit sets a direction of the vertical scanning in the first electro-optical device and a direction of the vertical canning in the second electro-optical device to be opposite to each other. Nakamura teaches an optical path shifting element (5, figure 1, paragraph 0030) in a projector prior to the projection optical system (6, figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Mizushiro to use the pixel shifting mechanism of Nakamura in the plural projectors of Mizushiro in order to improve the apparent resolution in the display (paragraph 0005). Mizushiro in view of Nakamura does not specify that the first and second electro-optical devices are updated by vertical scanning and a vertical scanning direction setting unit, wherein when there is a first overlapping region in which the first image light projected by the first projection optical member and the second image light projected by the second projection optical member overlap each other along a first direction parallel to a direction of the vertical scanning, the vertical scanning direction setting unit sets a direction of the vertical scanning in the first electro-optical device and a direction of the vertical canning in the second electro-optical device to be opposite to each other. Yatabe teaches an electro-optical device updated by vertical scanning (42U and 42L, figure 1 and figure 3; paragraph 0052) and a vertical scanning direction setting unit (14, paragraph 0040), wherein adjacent regions of the LCDs are driven such that the vertical scanning in the first region (30U, figure 1) of the electrooptical device and a direction of vertical scanning in the second region (30L, figure 1) of the electro-optical device are opposite to each other (paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Mizushiro in view of Nakamura to include the vertical scanning of the different LCDs in opposite directions such as taught in Yatabe in order to suppress the luminance discrepancies in the boundaries between projection display regions (paragraph 0052). Regarding claim 2, Mizushiro in view of Nakamura does not teach the vertical scanning direction setting unit is included in the first projector. Yatabe teaches the vertical scanning direction setting unit is included in the first display (paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Mizushiro in view of Nakamura to include the vertical scanning of the different LCDs in opposite directions such as taught in Yatabe in order to suppress the luminance discrepancies in the boundaries between projection display regions (paragraph 0052). Regarding claim 3, Mizushiro teaches an information processing device (100, figure 5) configured to supply first image data (6A, figure 5) to the first electro-optical device (10A, figure 5) and supply second image data (6B, figure 5) to the second electro-optical device (10B, figure 5), and that the image processing (110, 120, 180, 140, figure 5) is done by the information processing device (see figure 5) Mizushiro in view of Nakamura in view of Yatabe teaches the claimed invention except for specifying the vertical scanning direction setting unit is included in the information processing device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Mizushiro in view of Nakamura in view of Yatabe to put the vertical scanning direction setting unit in the information processing device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Mizushiro in view of Nakamura in view of Yatabe to put the vertical scanning direction setting unit in the information processing device in order to reduce the number of components and simplify the processing architecture. Regarding claim 4, Mizushiro teaches a third projector (10C, figure 1 and figure 5) including A third electro-optical device (paragraph 0087; liquid crystal panels) configured to emit third image light representing a third screen (2C, figure 1), and A third projection optical member (15, figure 6; paragraph 0088) configured to project the third image light, and A second overlapping region (3B, figure 1) in which the second image light is projected by the second projection optical member and the third image light projected by the third projection optical member overlap each other along a first direction (vertical overlap is described in paragraph 0053). Mizushiro does not teach the third electro-optical device is updated by vertical scanning, the third optical path shifting element configured to shift an optical path of the third image light; and the vertical scanning direction setting unit sets the direction of the vertical scanning in the second electro-optical device and a direction of the vertical scanning in the third electro-optical device to be opposite to each other. Nakamura teaches an optical path shifting element (5, figure 1, paragraph 0030) in a projector prior to the projection optical system (6, figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Mizushiro to use the pixel shifting mechanism of Nakamura in the plural projectors of Mizushiro in order to improve the apparent resolution in the display (paragraph 0005). Mizushiro in view of Nakamura does not teach the third electro-optical device is updated by vertical scanning, and the vertical scanning direction setting unit sets the direction of the vertical scanning in the second electro-optical device and a direction of the vertical scanning in the third electro-optical device to be opposite to each other. Yatabe teaches an electro-optical device updated by vertical scanning (42U and 42L, figure 1 and figure 3; paragraph 0052) and a vertical scanning direction setting unit (paragraph 0040), wherein adjacent regions of the LCDs are driven such that the vertical scanning in the first region (30U, figure 1) of the electrooptical device and a direction of vertical scanning in the second region (30L, figure 1) of the electro-optical device are opposite to each other (paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Mizushiro in view of Nakamura to include the vertical scanning of the different LCDs in opposite directions such as taught in Yatabe in order to suppress the luminance discrepancies in the boundaries between projection display regions (paragraph 0052). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 3/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the details of the added camera have not been taught by the prior art references. Examiner respectfully disagrees, this feature is taught as described in the updated rejection of claim 1 above. 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 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 RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00. 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 5712722303. 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. /RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 3/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587621
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND IMAGE PROJECTION DEVICE HAVING A LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587620
CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565330
AIRCRAFT BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548980
Single Element Dot Pattern Projector
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547009
EFFICIENT USER-DEFINED SDR-TO-HDR CONVERSION WITH MODEL TEMPLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month