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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the uniform light element" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no other instance of uniform light element in the claims., paragraph 0029 of the USPGPub indicates that element 10 are all instances of an optical homogenizer and that paragraph 0063 of the USPGPub indicates that the uniform light element is a particular instance of element 10. Therefore for the purpose of examination the uniform light element of claim 10 will be interpreted as the optical homogenizer of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner.
Regarding claim 11, Ge teaches an elongated structure comprising a light incident end (paragraph 0085) and a light outgoing end (paragraph 0085);
A diffuse surface (diffusion layer; paragraph 0085) facing an inner side of the elongated structure (figure 4b; or alternatively figure 4C) and
A reflecting surface (selective reflection layer; paragraph 0085) facing the inner side of the elongated structure and disposed opposite to the diffuse surface (see in figure 4b or alternatively figure 4c, wherein both surface are placed on upper and lower sides and so both are opposite each other on top and bottom), wherein the optical homogenizer is configured to make a light beam entering through the light incident end exit from the light outgoing end (left to right, figure 4b or alternatively figure 4c).
Regarding claim 12, Ge teaches the reflecting surface is a mirror surface (specular reflection is shown on the inner surface selective reflector of figure 4b, described in paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 13, Ge teaches the reflective surface is disposed outside the elongate structure (see figure 4c, if the elongate structure is defined only as the part of the integrator rod having the diffuse and selective reflecting layer, then the specularly selective reflecting layer extends out of the elongate body; paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 14, Ge teaches the light beam is at least reflected from the diffuse surface twice and from the reflective surface twice before outgoing from the light outgoing end (shown in figure 4b are two reflections from each of the diffuse surface on top, the selective reflection layer on top and the diffuse and selective reflection layers on bottom).
Regarding claim 15, Ge teaches the optical homogenizer is a hollow integral rod (paragraph 0085; ‘includes a hollow tube body’).
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) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Ge teaches a de-speckle device (paragraph 0085)
An optical homogenizer (figure 4b) comprising a diffuse surface (paragraph 0085; ‘diffusion layer’) and a reflecting surface (‘selective reflection layer’; paragraph 0085) disposed opposite to the diffuse surface (the selective reflection layer is provided on all surfaces and the diffuse reflection layer is provided on all surfaces of the homogenizer so therefore at least one of the diffusion layers is opposed to one of the selective reflection layers).
Ge does not specify a connecting mechanism, wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer; and an actuator configured to move the optical homogenizer back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer.
Mori teaches a connecting mechanism (unlabeled, but shown in figure 10 see annotated figure 10 below), wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer (element 2 is the optical homogenizer connected via 6, figure 10 with the connecting mechanism); and
An actuator (4, 5, figures 9 and 10) configured to move the optical homogenizer (2, figure 9) back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer (along the x and y axes movement shown by double sided arrows in figure 9; the claim does not specify that the axis must be the optical axis of the optical homogenizer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuator of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ge does not specify that the de-speckle device further comprises a carrier, and the optical homogenizer is disposed on the carrier.
Mori teaches the de-speckle device further comprises a carrier (6, figure 9), and the optical homogenizer (2, figure 9) is disposed on the carrier (6, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuator of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 4, Ge teaches the diffuse surface comprises microstructures (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 5, Ge does not specify that the actuator is piezoelectric element.
Mori teaches the actuator is a piezoelectric element (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuator of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 9, Ge does not specify that the actuator is configured to make the optical homogenizer move back and forth along a direction perpendicular to the axis of the optical homogenizer.
Mori teaches the actuator is configured to make the optical homogenizer move back and forth along a direction perpendicular to the axis of the optical homogenizer (one actuator moves in the x and one in the y direction which are perpendicular to each other; paragraph 0045)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuator of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 17, Ge teaches a de-speckle device (paragraph 0085)
An optical homogenizer (figure 4b) comprising a diffuse surface (paragraph 0085; ‘diffusion layer’) and a reflecting surface (‘selective reflection layer’; paragraph 0085) disposed opposite to the diffuse surface (the selective reflection layer is provided on all surfaces and the diffuse reflection layer is provided on all surfaces of the homogenizer so therefore at least one of the diffusion layers is opposed to one of the selective reflection layers).
Ge does not specify a connecting mechanism, wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer; and an actuator configured to move the optical homogenizer back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer; and an outer frame, wherein the optical homogenizer, the connecting mechanism and the actuator are disposed on the outer frame.
Mori teaches a connecting mechanism (unlabeled, but shown in figure 10 see annotated figure 10 below), wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer (element 2 is the optical homogenizer connected via 6, figure 10 with the connecting mechanism); and
An actuator (4, 5, figures 9 and 10) configured to move the optical homogenizer (2, figure 9) back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer (along the x and y axes movement shown by double sided arrows in figure 9; the claim does not specify that the axis must be the optical axis of the optical homogenizer); and
An outer frame (whatever is housing the optical system, which is not shown in Mori can be called the outer frame), wherein the optical homogenizer, the connecting mechanism, and the actuator are disposed on the outer frame (see 400, figure 10 which contains the homogenizer (2) the actuator (4 5) and the connecting mechanism shown in annotated figure 10 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuator of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 19, Ge does not specify a carrier and the optical homogenizer is disposed in the carrier.
Mori teaches a carrier (6, figure 9 and 10), and the optical homogenizer is disposed in the carrier (2, figure 9).
Ge does not specify a connecting mechanism, wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer; and
An actuator configured to move the optical homogenizer back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer.
Mori teaches a connecting mechanism (unlabeled, but shown in figure 10 see annotated figure 10 below), wherein one end of the connecting mechanism is connected to the optical homogenizer (element 2 is the optical homogenizer connected via 6, figure 10 with the connecting mechanism); and
An actuator (4, 5, figures 9 and 10) configured to move the optical homogenizer (2, figure 9) back and forth along an axis of the optical homogenizer (along the x and y axes movement shown by double sided arrows in figure 9; the claim does not specify that the axis must be the optical axis of the optical homogenizer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge to use the actuating system of Mori in order to further reduce the laser speckle (paragraph 0051) and improve image quality.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 2012/0218615 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ge in view of Mori does not specify the connecting mechanism is an elastic element.
Yasuda teaches the connecting mechanism is an elastic element (torsion bar, paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge in view of Mori to use an elastic connection such as taught in Yasuda in order to improve driving force while simplifying the actuating system and keeping it compact (paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claim 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Ariga et al. (JP 2015/081953 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner.
Regarding claim 6 and 20, Ge in view of Mori does not specify the actuator comprises a motor and a cam and is configured to drive the optical homogenizer to move through the connecting mechanism.
Ariga teaches driving an optical element to move through a motor and a cam (paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer tunnel of Ge in view of Mori to use the motor and eccentric cam of Ariga to drive the homogenizer in order to make the device simpler and cheaper.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirakura (US 2021/0096449 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 10, Ge in view of Mori does not specify the actuator is provided with a first part and a second part corresponding to each other, wherein the first part and the second part are a magnet and a coil that are correspondingly interchangeable to drive the optical homogenizer to move through an EM force at a distance.
Hirakura teaches the actuator is provided with a first part and a second part corresponding to each other, wherein the first part and the second part are a magnet and a coil that are correspondingly interchangeable to drive the optical homogenizer to move through an EM force at a distance (paragraph 0040). The attachment points to be the outer frame and the homogenizing element are an obvious design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art. In order to impart motion on the homogenizer relative to the structure of the rest of the optical system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge in view of Mori to use the EM actuator of Hirakura in order to make the actuator more cheaply.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niederer et al. (US 2016/0306183 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ge in view of Mori does not teach the actuator is provided with a first part and a second part corresponding to each other wherein the first part and the second part a magnetic conductive element and an electromagnet that are correspondingly interchangeable to drive the optical homogenizer to move through an electromagnetic force at a distance.
Niederer teaches the actuator is provided with a first part and a second part corresponding to each other wherein the first part and the second part a magnetic conductive element (50, paragraph 0088) and an electromagnet (40, 30, figure 1 and element 40 figure 5) that are correspondingly interchangeable to drive the optical diffusive element (10, figure 5) to move through an electromagnetic force at a distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the homogenizer of Ge in view of Mori to use the EM actuator of Niederer in order to improve reliability and reduce cost while at increasing thermal and mechanical stability (paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Yanai (US 2011/0310349 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ge does not specify that microstructures are formed on the diffuse surface of the optical homogenizer by means of nanoimprint, wafer level lens or metalens.
Yanai teaches a diffuse surface made by nanoimprinting (paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the optical homogenizer of Ge to use the nanoimprinting of Yanai in order to simplify the production of the diffuse layer.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 110967902 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Mori et al. (WO 2020/194850 A1), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyata (US 7,997,740 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Ge in view of Mori does not teach the outer frame comprises a chute and the optical homogenizer is configured to move back and forth in the chute.
Miyata teaches a chute (11, figure 3) and the optical homogenizer is configured to move back and forth in the chute (column 2 lines 6-10).
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 Ge in view of Mori to use the outer frame/chute arrangement for the homogenizer as taught in Miyata in order to position the homogenizer more precisely relative to the projection components.
Conclusion
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 11/18/2025