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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 7 ’an incident light of the first lens’ should read ‘an incident light surface of the first lens’. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 10, the specification does not include any reference to different portions of the projection screen having different curvatures.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the limitation ‘a center axis of the projection device’ is indefinite inasmuch as there is no center axis identified in the specification to which this limitation corresponds and the limitation could correspond to at least two different interpretations, namely the axis of the cylinder formed by line going into the plane of the page in figure 4 and passing through the point formed by 411, 412, 413 and 414 in the color combining prism, or the limitation could refer to the optical axis of the projection device 20 in figure 2). The amendment to claim 5 indicates that the center axis would be better interpreted as the central axis of the cylinder formed by the color combining prism. Therefore for the purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as the central axis along the height of the cylinder in figure 6. Claims 4-5, 7, 16, 17 contain reference to the ‘center axis’ and are indefinite for the same reason. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected inasmuch as they depend from claim 1 and 11 respectively.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, this claim is indefinite inasmuch as ‘via one or more lenses’ does not refer explicitly to the projection lens component of claim 1 of which they are a part according to the specification. The indefiniteness arises because if the ‘one or more lenses’ are interpreted as separate elements from the ‘projection lens component’. For the purpose of examination the ‘one or more lenses’ will be interpreted as a further specification of ‘a projection lens component’ of claim 1. Claims 3 and 9 are rejected inasmuch as they depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is indefinite inasmuch as the incident light [surface] of the first lens cannot be flat inasmuch as claim 1 already specifies that this particular surface is ‘a convex arc surface towards the first display surface’. While the specification (see paragraph 0072 of the USPGPUB) does provide for the case that some surfaces may be curved and some flat, claim 7 cannot contradict claim 1 upon which it depends. For the purpose of examination only the second lens will be interpreted as being a flat surface. Furthermore with regard to claim 7, ‘a first lens’ and ‘a second lens’ are indefinite inasmuch as they are part of the ‘projection lens component’ however the claims do not make clear that they belong to this element, and they can be interpreted as separate elements not referring back to their antecedent. For the purpose of examination the first and second lenses will be interpreted as further limiting the projection lens component.
Claim 9 is indefinite inasmuch as the light adjusting lens group, the first lens, the second lens and the third lens are part of the projection lens component however the claims do not make clear that they belong to this element, and they can be interpreted as separate elements not referring back to their antecedent. For the purpose of examination the light adjusting lens group and the first through third lenses will be interpreted as further limiting the projection lens component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 3/04/2026, with respect to the display device of the prior art not using pixels have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, prior art does not teach the display device comprises pixel elements.
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 5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights