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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 laser beam directed “in a U-shape” of claim 15 and the “through hole” of claim 16 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 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 13-24 are 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 13 recites “an actuable laser module having at least one laser source configured to emit a laser beam of a predefinable intensity.” However, it is unclear how a laser module can be “actuable” or how a laser beam can have “a predefinable intensity” as any laser beam has an intensity and any laser module must be actuated to emit a laser beam. For the purposes of examination, any laser module that emits a laser beam will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “the at least one laser beam” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “at least one laser beam” has been previously defined. It is unclear if “the at least one laser beam” is intended to refer to the “at least one laser source” or the “laser beam of a predefinable intensity” or some other laser beam. For the purposes of examination, “the at least one laser beam” will be interpreted as “the laser beam.”
Claim 13 further recites that “the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side.” However, it is unclear how the “beam-deflection system” can be “configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side” as the claim does not positively require the beam-deflection system to be between the laser module and the micromirror array. As such, it is unclear if the beam-deflection system should have any structure that directs the laser module to the micromirror array or if any device that has a laser directed from the laser module to the micromirror array would read on the claimed limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require any specific structure of the beam-deflection system that directs the laser beam, or if the claim merely intends for the laser beam to be directed to the micromirror array.
For the purposes of examination, any module with a laser module, a micromirror array, and a beam-deflection system with the laser beam passing from the laser module to the micromirror array will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 14-24 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 13 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 14 recites that “the laser module is positioned on the support front side in such a way that the at least one laser beam is emitted parallel to the support front side, and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed parallel to the support rear side onto the micromirror array.” However, it is unclear how the laser beam can be “directed parallel to the support rear side” while also “the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side.” To be clear, if the beam-deflection system directs the laser beam from one side to the other, the laser beam would not be parallel to either side. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination, any module that directs light from the front side to the rear side will be interpreted as reading on the claimed configuration.
Claim 15 recites that “the laser module and the micromirror array are situated and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed in a U-shape from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side.” However, it is unclear how the laser beam can be “directed in a U-shape” while also “the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side.” To be clear, if the beam-deflection system directs the laser beam from one side to the other, the laser beam would not be formed in a U-shape. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination, any module that directs light from the front side to the rear side will be interpreted as reading on the claimed configuration.
Claim 16 recites that “the mounting support has a through hole, and the beam-deflection system is positioned and configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side through the through hole onto the micromirror array on the support rear side.” However, the claims do not positively require a beam-deflection system to be provided between the micromirror array and the laser module and it is unclear what structure is required such that the beam-deflection system can be “positioned and configured in such a way” that the laser beam is directed to a certain element. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a physical location of the system, a structure of the system, or other features of the mounting support. Moreover, given that the micromirror array is on the support rear side it is unclear how a laser beam can be directed through a through hole in the mounting support to another element on the mounting support. For the purposes of examination, any system that includes a mounting support with a through hole through which the laser beam is directed will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites that “the beam-deflection system includes a plurality of optical elements whose interaction induces a beam deflection of the at least one laser beam.” However, it is unclear what is required to be the “interaction” that induces a beam deflection. It is unclear if the “plurality of optical elements” should interact with each other, with the laser beam, or with some other feature, and how such an interaction can induce a beam deflection. For the purposes of examination, any system including a plurality of optical elements that deflect the laser beam will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 recites that “optical elements for the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping of the at least one laser beam are situated on the support front side between the laser module and the beam-deflection system.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping.” It is unclear that the claims should require beam combining, beam aligning, or beam shaping. Moreover, the repeated use of “and/or” makes the claim unclear as to what is actually required by the optical elements in the claim. Additionally, as the laser beam is directed from the front side to the rear side, it is unclear how optical elements can be situated on the front side and also be between the laser module, which is on the front side, and the beam-deflection system, which is on the rear side. For the purposes of examination, any optical elements located between the laser module and the beam-deflection system will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 21 recites that “electrical contacting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the light sensor is realized via at least one flexible circuit board, which is fixed in place on the mounting support.” However, it is unclear how “electrical contacting” can be “realized by at least one flexible circuit board” as it is unclear what the various elements should be electrically contacted to and if the claim positively requires a flexible circuit board. Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the light sensor” in the claim as no light sensor has been defined. For the purposes of examination, any device including a flexible circuit board will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 22 recites that “the mounting support is equipped with at least one internal mechanical interface, which facilitates an adjusted mounting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the beam-deflection system on the mounting support.” However, it is unclear how an “internal mechanical interface” can “facilitate an adjusted mounting.” Specifically, it is unclear if the interface should have a structure that physically adjusts the mounting or if the interface should merely be capable of allowing for adjustment, or if the interface is structure such that the mounting is adjusted relative to some other state of the devices. Moreover, the repeated use of “and/or” makes the claim unclear as to what is actually required by the optical elements in the claim. For the purposes of examination, any mounting support with a mechanical interface with a structure capable of providing adjustment to any elements will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 23 recites that “the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system.” However, it is unclear how a mechanical interface can “form a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment.” Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes a “reference surface” and what calibration or alignment should be performed. Additionally, it is unclear what the elements should be aligned with respect to. Furthermore, it is unclear how the interface can “facilitate an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system” as it is unclear what constitutes “an adjusted installation” and what constitutes a “higher-order overall system.” It is unclear if any installation would be adjusted by being assembled or if some additional adjustment is intended to be encompassed by the claim. Further, it is unclear if any system constitutes a “higher-order overall system” or if “higher-order overall” is intended to impart some structure. For the purposes of examination, any mounting support with an external mechanical interface that has a structure capable of allowing adjustment will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 24 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 23 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 24 further recites that “the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher- order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space.” However, it is unclear how “the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement” when the mechanical interface is defined in claim 23 to be a reference surface. Furthermore, it is unclear what specific structure is required “so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher- order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space” as it is unclear if any of the interaction must actually occur. For the purposes of examination, any mounting surface with a stop or fastener will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sprague et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,834,867; hereinafter – “Sprague”).
Regarding claim 13, Sprague teaches a projection module, comprising:
an actuable laser module (116) having at least one laser source (204, 206, 208) configured to emit a laser beam of a predefinable intensity (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 31-50; C. 6, L. 4-55);
an actuable micromirror array (120) configured to deflect the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-12 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 62 – C. 5, L. 40);
a mounting support (202) having a support front side and a support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 2-11; C. 6, L. 4-30); and
a beam-deflection system (118, 126, 602-614) (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 51-61; C. 6, L. 4-55);
wherein:
the laser module is situated on the support front side (See e.g. Figs. 2-11 and 15-25; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 6, L. 62 – C. 7, L. 34; C. 18, L. 7-26),
the micromirror array is situated on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 2-11 and 15-25; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 6, L. 62 – C. 7, L. 34; C. 18, L. 7-26), and
the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 2-11 and 15-25; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 6, L. 62 – C. 7, L. 34; C. 18, L. 7-26).
Regarding claim 14, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the laser module (116) is positioned on the support front side in such a way that the at least one laser beam is emitted parallel to the support front side, and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed parallel to the support rear side onto the micromirror array (See e.g. Figs. 2-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 31-50; C. 6, L. 4-55).
Regarding claim 15, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the laser module and the micromirror array are situated and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed in a U-shape from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 2-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 31-50; C. 6, L. 4-55).
Regarding claim 16, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the mounting support has a through hole, and the beam-deflection system (120) is positioned and configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side through the through hole onto the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 6, 8-9, and 18; C. 7, L. 16-34).
Regarding claim 17, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the beam-deflection system includes a plurality of optical elements (118, 126, 602-614) whose interaction induces a beam deflection of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 51-61; C. 6, L. 4-55).
Regarding claim 18, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the beam-deflection system is configured to decouple at least a partial beam of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 20-30; C. 4, L. 51-61; C. 6, L. 4-55; C. 15, L. 8 – C. 16, L. 53).
Regarding claim 19, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 18, as above.
Sprague further teaches that a light sensor (2504, 2518) including a photodiode (2512, 2516, 2526), is positioned in a beam path of the at least one partial beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 20-30; C. 4, L. 51-61; C. 6, L. 4-55; C. 15, L. 8 – C. 16, L. 53).
Regarding claim 20, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that optical elements for the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping of the at least one laser beam are situated on the support front side between the laser module and the beam-deflection system (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and 15-25; C. 4, L. 51-61; C. 6, L. 4-55).
Regarding claim 21, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that electrical contacting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the light sensor is realized via at least one flexible circuit board (622, 1102), which is fixed in place on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 1-11; C. 6, L. 31-55; C. 7, L. 35-56; C. 8, L. 6-29; C. 17, L. 11-62).
Regarding claim 22, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one internal mechanical interface, which facilitates an adjusted mounting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the beam-deflection system on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 2-11; C. 4, L. 1-12; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 7, L. 16-56).
Regarding claim 23, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 17, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Figs. 2-11; C. 4, L. 1-12; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 7, L. 16-56).
Regarding claim 24, Sprague teaches the projection module as recited in claim 23, as above.
Sprague further teaches that the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher-order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space (See e.g. Figs. 2-11; C. 4, L. 1-12; C. 6, L. 4-30; C. 7, L. 16-56).
Claim(s) 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0373420; hereinafter – “Masuda”).
Regarding claim 13, Masuda teaches a projection module, comprising:
an actuable laser module (2) having at least one laser source (22) configured to emit a laser beam of a predefinable intensity (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0027, 0030, 0040, and 0043);
an actuable micromirror array (7) configured to deflect the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0027, 0030, and 0051-0057);
a mounting support (1) having a support front side and a support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059); and
a beam-deflection system (3, 5) (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, and 0048-0050);
wherein:
the laser module is situated on the support front side (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059),
the micromirror array is situated on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059), and
the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 14, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the laser module (2) is positioned on the support front side in such a way that the at least one laser beam is emitted parallel to the support front side, and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed parallel to the support rear side onto the micromirror array (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 15, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the laser module and the micromirror array are situated and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed in a U-shape from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0031, 0033-0039, 0044, 0048-0052, 0054-0055, and 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 16, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the mounting support has a through hole (13), and the beam-deflection system is positioned and configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side through the through hole onto the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 9 and 14; Paragraphs 0031, 0037, 0048, and 0052).
Regarding claim 17, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the beam-deflection system includes a plurality of optical elements (3, 5) whose interaction induces a beam deflection of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, and 0048-0050).
Regarding claim 18, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the beam-deflection system is configured to decouple at least a partial beam of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 9-11; Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, and 0050).
Regarding claim 19, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 18, as above.
Masuda further teaches that a light sensor (6) including a photodiode, is positioned in a beam path of the at least one partial beam (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 9-11; Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, and 0050).
Regarding claim 20, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that optical elements for the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping of the at least one laser beam are situated on the support front side between the laser module and the beam-deflection system (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, and 0048-0050).
Regarding claim 21, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that electrical contacting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the light sensor is realized via at least one flexible circuit board (21, 71), which is fixed in place on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 1-13; Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0050, 0052-0054, and 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 22, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one internal mechanical interface, which facilitates an adjusted mounting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the beam-deflection system on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0046, 0052, and 0054-0059).
Regarding claim 23, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 17, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0046, 0052, and 0054-0059).
Regarding claim 24, Masuda teaches the projection module as recited in claim 23, as above.
Masuda further teaches that the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher-order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0046, 0052, and 0054-0059).
Claim(s) 13-20 and 22-23 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,182,600; hereinafter – “Ishida”).
Regarding claim 13, Ishida teaches a projection module, comprising:
an actuable laser module (2) having at least one laser source (21) configured to emit a laser beam of a predefinable intensity (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20 – C. 6, L. 67);
an actuable micromirror array (4) configured to deflect the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20-46; C. 9, L. 7-30);
a mounting support (9) having a support front side and a support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 9); and
a beam-deflection system (3, 23) (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20-46; C. 6, L. 52-67; C. 7, L. 47 – C. 8, L. 58);
wherein:
the laser module is situated on the support front side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 9),
the micromirror array is situated on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 9; C. 7, L. 60 – C. 8, L. 11; C. 16, L. 6-36), and
the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 7, L. 47 – C. 8, L. 58).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the laser module (2) is positioned on the support front side in such a way that the at least one laser beam is emitted parallel to the support front side, and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed parallel to the support rear side onto the micromirror array (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20 – C. 6, L. 67).
Regarding claim 15, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the laser module and the micromirror array are situated and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed in a U-shape from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20 – C. 6, L. 67).
Regarding claim 16, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the mounting support has a through hole (91), and the beam-deflection system (23, 3) is positioned and configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side through the through hole onto the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 32-46).
Regarding claim 17, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the beam-deflection system includes a plurality of optical elements (23R, 23B, 23G, 31, 32) whose interaction induces a beam deflection of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20-46; C. 6, L. 52-67; C. 7, L. 47 – C. 8, L. 58).
Regarding claim 18, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the beam-deflection system is configured to decouple at least a partial beam of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 32-46; C. 17, L. 13-26).
Regarding claim 19, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 18, as above.
Ishida further teaches that a light sensor (5) including a photodiode (51), is positioned in a beam path of the at least one partial beam (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 32-46; C. 17, L. 13-26).
Regarding claim 20, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that optical elements for the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping of the at least one laser beam are situated on the support front side between the laser module and the beam-deflection system (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3; C. 5, L. 20-46; C. 6, L. 52-67; C. 7, L. 47 – C. 8, L. 58).
Regarding claim 22, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one internal mechanical interface (6, 41), which facilitates an adjusted mounting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the beam-deflection system on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 5, L. 32-46; C. 9, L. 14-30; C. 17, L. 27-67; C. 18, L. 22-35).
Regarding claim 23, Ishida teaches the projection module as recited in claim 17, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 5, L. 32-46; C. 9, L. 14-30; C. 17, L. 27-67; C. 18, L. 22-35).
Claim(s) 13-20 and 22-23 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holland et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0180886; hereinafter – “Holland”).
Regarding claim 13, Holland teaches a projection module, comprising:
an actuable laser module (300, 400) having at least one laser source (361, 362, 363, 364, 461, 462, 463, 464) configured to emit a laser beam of a predefinable intensity (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046 and 0048-0050);
an actuable micromirror array (380, 480) configured to deflect the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0050);
a mounting support (590) having a support front side and a support rear side (See e.g. Fig. 5; Paragraph 0050); and
a beam-deflection system (330, 430, 530) (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0045, 0046, and 0048-0050);
wherein:
the laser module is situated on the support front side (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046 and 0048-0050),
the micromirror array is situated on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0050), and
the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0050).
Regarding claim 14, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the laser module (300, 400) is positioned on the support front side in such a way that the at least one laser beam is emitted parallel to the support front side, and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed parallel to the support rear side onto the micromirror array (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0050).
Regarding claim 15, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the laser module and the micromirror array are situated and the beam-deflection system is configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed in a U-shape from the laser module on the support front side to the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0050).
Regarding claim 16, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the mounting support has a through hole (245, 345), and the beam-deflection system is positioned and configured in such a way that the at least one laser beam is directed from the laser module on the support front side through the through hole onto the micromirror array on the support rear side (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 5; Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0050).
Regarding claim 17, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the beam-deflection system includes a plurality of optical elements (351-354, 451-455, 551-554) whose interaction induces a beam deflection of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0045, 0046, and 0048-0050).
Regarding claim 18, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the beam-deflection system is configured to decouple at least a partial beam of the at least one laser beam (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 19, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 18, as above.
Holland further teaches that a light sensor including a photodiode (485), is positioned in a beam path of the at least one partial beam (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 20, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that optical elements for the beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping of the at least one laser beam are situated on the support front side between the laser module and the beam-deflection system (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0046, and 0048-0050).
Regarding claim 22, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Holland further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one internal mechanical interface, which facilitates an adjusted mounting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the beam-deflection system on the mounting support (See e.g. Fig. 5; Paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 23, Holland teaches the projection module as recited in claim 17, as above.
Holland further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Fig. 5; Paragraph 0050).
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(s) 21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida or Holland in view of Masuda.
Regarding claim 21, Ishida and Holland each teaches the projection module as recited in claim 13, as above.
Ishida and Holland fail to explicitly disclose that electrical contacting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the light sensor is realized via at least one flexible circuit board, which is fixed in place on the mounting support.
However, Masuda teaches a projecting apparatus comprising a laser module (2), a micromirror array (7), a beam-deflection system (3, 5), and a light sensor (6) on a mounting support (1), wherein electrical contacting of the laser module and/or the micromirror array and/or the light sensor is realized via at least one flexible circuit board (21, 71), which is fixed in place on the mounting support (See e.g. Figs. 1-13; Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0050, 0052-0054, and 0056-0058).
Masuda teaches this flexible circuit board for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit” (Paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection module of Ishida or Holland with the flexible circuit board of Masuda for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit,” as taught by Masuda (Paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 23, Ishida and Holland each teaches the projection module as recited in claim 17, as above.
Ishida further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 5, L. 32-46; C. 9, L. 14-30; C. 17, L. 27-67; C. 18, L. 22-35).
Holland further teaches that the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Fig. 5; Paragraph 0050).
Nevertheless, Examiner further submits reference Masuda. Masuda teaches a projecting apparatus comprising a laser module (2), a micromirror array (7), a beam-deflection system (3, 5), and a light sensor (6) on a mounting support (1), wherein the mounting support is equipped with at least one external mechanical interface, the external mechanical interface forming a reference surface for calibration and optical alignment of the laser module, the micromirror array, the beam-deflection system, and the optical elements for beam combining and/or beam aligning and/or beam shaping and facilitating an adjusted installation of the projection module in a higher-order overall system (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0046, 0052, and 0054-0059).
Masuda teaches this mechanical interface “for facilitating to increase an assembling precision of the at least one collimator lens” and for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit” such that “the components of the projecting apparatus can be properly arranged in the frame to effectively control the shape and volume of the projecting apparatus” (Paragraphs 0060-0063).
Therefore, even if Ishida and Holland did not disclose the claimed mechanical interface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection module of Ishida or Holland with the external interface of Masuda “for facilitating to increase an assembling precision of the at least one collimator lens” and for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit” such that “the components of the projecting apparatus can be properly arranged in the frame to effectively control the shape and volume of the projecting apparatus,” as taught by Masuda (Paragraphs 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 24, Ishida in view of Masuda and Holland in view of Masuda each teaches the projection module as recited in claim 23, as above.
Ishida and Holland fail to explicitly disclose that the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher-order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space.
However, Masuda further teaches that the at least one external mechanical interface is realized in the form of a mechanical stop and/or mechanical fastening arrangement so that, in an interaction with a corresponding mechanical interface of the higher-order overall system, it prevents a translatory movement in at least one direction in space and/or a rotatory movement about at least one direction in space (See e.g. Figs. 1-15; Paragraphs 0046, 0052, and 0054-0059).
Masuda teaches this mechanical interface “for facilitating to increase an assembling precision of the at least one collimator lens” and for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit” such that “the components of the projecting apparatus can be properly arranged in the frame to effectively control the shape and volume of the projecting apparatus” (Paragraphs 0060-0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection module of Ishida or Holland with the external interface of Masuda “for facilitating to increase an assembling precision of the at least one collimator lens” and for “precisely controlling the predetermined angle between the first MEMS unit and the second MEMS unit” such that “the components of the projecting apparatus can be properly arranged in the frame to effectively control the shape and volume of the projecting apparatus,” as taught by Masuda (Paragraphs 0060-0063).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Domnits (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0140571) teaches a compact optical module with a similar laser module, micromirror array, and beam-deflection system in a mounting support.
Xu (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0037183) teaches systems, devices, and methods for laser projectors having a similar configuration.
Alexander et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0045955) teaches systems, devices, and methods for variable luminance in wearable heads-up displays having a similar structure.
Holland et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0299956) teaches systems, devices, and methods for focusing laser projectors.
Eberl et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0345826) teaches an information system and method for providing information using a holographic element having a similar projection module.
Nishioka (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0378151) teaches an image display device and head-mounted display having a similar projection module.
Fleck et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2013/0242056) teaches an imaging structure emitter calibration with a similar projection module structure.
Maeda (U.S. Patent No. 8,432,595) teaches a scanning image displayer, mobile phone, mobile information processor, and mobile imager with a similar projection structure.
Urakawa (U.S. Patent No. 7,609,229) teaches an image displaying apparatus with a projection module having a laser module, micromirror array, and beam-deflection system in an adjustable mounting support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896