DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING ROTATING REFLECTION ELEMENT.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2007/0040991 A1, IDS).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a display system (Lee, FIG. 2, [0032], an “image display apparatus”), comprising:
a display device (Lee, FIG. 2, [0034], “light-emitting unit 100”) configured to display multiple frames (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 2-3a, [0039], 10 “partial images 501a to 510a”) of a first image (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 2-3a, [0041], a “complete image” from “image frame 500”);
a reflection device (Lee, FIGS. 2 and 4a, [0044], “rotary optical scanner 310” in association with “reflection-type image display device 200a”) comprising a reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) configured to reflect the first image (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 2-3a, [0041], the “complete image” from “image frame 500”); and
a receiving screen (Lee, FIGS. 2 and 5, [0041], “screen 400”) configured to receive the frames of the first image (Lee, e.g., see FIG. 5, [0047], “reference numerals 1 to 10 arranged on the screen 400 in FIG. 2”) reflected by the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 5, [0047], “reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”);
wherein adjacent k frames of the first image are reflected to different locations of the receiving screen to form a frame of a second image, k is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 9-10, [0072], k=10, “the plurality of polygonal reflectors 310a, 310-1 to 310-10 includes a master polygonal reflector 310a reflecting the partial images, which the reflection-type image display device 200b provides thereto, over a given angle range in a first direction, and slave polygonal reflectors 310-1 to 310-10 reflecting the partial images, which the master polygonal reflector 310a reflects, over a given angle range in a second direction. As illustrated, the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction”; Examiner interprets another image after the “complete image” generated by reflections in “second direction” as the “second image”, especially when the images are of motion).
As to claim 2, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein when the display device (Lee, FIG. 2, [0034], “light-emitting unit 100”) displays the adjacent k frames of the first image (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 2-3 and 5, k=10), in a horizontal blanking period between adjacent two frames (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], the period defined by the blank period between two adjacent “mirrors 312a”) of the first image (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 2-3a, [0041], the “complete image” from “image frame 500”), the reflection element rotates along a same direction (Lee, FIG. 5, [0047], “reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”; it is reasonably inferred that the arrow in FIG. 5 indicates the same rotating direction) by a predetermined angle (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “incline angles that the respective mirrors 312a form with the outer circumferential surfaces of the polygonal prism 312b, and the incline angles conform to the relation: θ1 ≥ θ2 … θ9 ≥ θ10”).
As to claim 4, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined angle is a constant value (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 3a-3b, [0046], “as illustrated in FIGS. 3a and 3b, the rotary motor 314 may rotate each of the mirrors of the polygon mirror 312 in increments of 36 degrees”).
As to claim 5, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein in the adjacent k frames of the first image, a row number of pixels of a current frame of the first image is less than a row number of the pixels of a next frame of the first image (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “the incline angles conform to the relation: θ1 ≥ θ2 … θ9 ≥ θ10”; [0052], “The decoded image frame is generally stored as matrix-type digital data, and each coordinate point of the matrix contains pixel information of the image frame. Thus, the data divider 620 may divide a set of data present at coordinate points, which correspond to the respective partial images in the matrix-type data corresponding to one image frame, into sub-data”; it is reasonably inferred that the surface area (SA) of “1st mirror 312a” ≥ SA of “2nd mirror 312a” and so are the numbers of pixels corresponding to the SA of respective “mirror 312A”), or a column number of pixels of a current frame of the first image is less than a column number of the pixels of a next frame of the first image.
As to claim 6, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) comprises at least one reflection portion (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “polygonal prism 312b”), a cross section of the reflection portion (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “polygonal prism 312b”) is a serration formed by vertical surfaces and tilt surfaces continuously repeated (Lee, see FIG. 4b), the tilt surfaces are reflection surfaces (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”);
along a rotational direction of the reflection element, and included angles between the tilt surfaces and the vertical surfaces gradually decrease (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “incline angles that the respective mirrors 312a form with the outer circumferential surfaces of the polygonal prism 312b, and the incline angles conform to the relation: θ1 ≥ θ2 … θ9 ≥ θ10”).
As to claim 8, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) comprises a reflection surface (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirror 312a”), after k frames of the first image are reflected each time, the reflection element is restored to an initial location; and when a first frame of the first image transmitted by the display device is reflected to a target location of the receiving screen, a location of the reflection element is the initial location (Lee, see FIGS. 4-5, [0047], e.g., “an arrow designates an order to project the respective partial images, and reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”).
As to claim 10, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) comprises a plurality of reflection surfaces (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”), after a current one of the reflection surfaces reflects the first image, the reflection element rotates to a next one of the reflection surfaces (Lee, see FIGS. 4-5, [0047], e.g., “an arrow designates an order to project the respective partial images, and reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”).
As to claim 11, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 10, wherein the reflection surfaces (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”) are connected to one another to form an annular structure (Lee, see FIG. 4b), and a cross section of the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) is a regular polygon (Lee, see FIG. 4b).
As to claim 12, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 11, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) is a polyhedral prism, or a plurality of planar mirrors (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”) are bonded together to form the annular structure (Lee, see FIG. 4b).
As to claim 13, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 11, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) rotates at a constant angular velocity (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 3a-3b, [0046], “as illustrated in FIGS. 3a and 3b, the rotary motor 314 may rotate each of the mirrors of the polygon mirror 312 in increments of 36 degrees”).
As to claim 14, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 10, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) further comprises a plurality of connection surfaces (Lee, see FIG. 4a, the surfaces disposed between “mirror 312a” and “prism 312b”), the reflection surfaces (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”) and the connection surfaces (Lee, see FIG. 4a, the surfaces disposed between “mirror 312a” and “prism 312b”) are connected alternately to one another to constitute an annular structure (Lee, see FIG. 4b), a cross section of the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) is a serration formed by (Lee, see FIG. 4a) the reflection surface (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”) and the connection surfaces (Lee, see FIG. 4a, the surfaces disposed between “mirror 312a” and “prism 312b”) continuously repeated (Lee, see FIG. 4a).
As to claim 15, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 10, wherein the reflection surfaces (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”) are disposed at intervals (Lee, see FIG. 4a), and after the reflection surfaces sequentially reflect k frames of the first image, the reflection element is restored to an initial location (Lee, see FIGS. 4-5, [0047], e.g., “an arrow designates an order to project the respective partial images, and reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”); and
when a first frame of the first image transmitted by the display device is reflected to a target location of the receiving screen, a location of the reflection element is the initial location (Lee, see FIGS. 4-5, [0047], e.g., “an arrow designates an order to project the respective partial images, and reference numerals 1 to 10 represent that the mirrors 1 to 10 of the optical scanner 310 reflect the corresponding partial images, respectively”).
As to claim 16, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 10, wherein the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) comprises a plurality of reflection portions (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “polygonal prism 312b”) that are the same, each of the reflection portions is a triangular prism (Lee, see FIG. 4b).
As to claim 17, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 16, wherein a bottom surface of each of the reflection portions (Lee, see FIG. 4b, [0044], “polygonal prism 312b”) comprises a first edge, a second edge, and a third edge, a length of the first edge is greater than a length of the second edge, the first edge of one of the reflection portions is connected to the second edge of an adjacent one of the reflection portions (Lee, see FIG. 4b, [0044], “polygonal prism 312b”), and the third edge is a side edge of the reflection surface (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “mirrors 312a”).
As to claim 18, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the second image comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in an array, and the pixels are arranged in M columns and N rows; wherein the first image comprises the pixels of M columns and n rows, n<N; or the first image comprises the pixels of m columns and N rows, m<M (Lee, [0046], “The rotation angle of the polygon mirror 312 rotating by the rotary motor 314 is inversely proportional to the number of partial images that the reflection-type image display device 200a provides for each image frame”, i.e., if k (number of partial images) for 1st image=5 and k for 2nd image=10, increments are 72° and 32° for the 1st and 2nd images, respectively, for example; it is reasonably inferred that, in this case, the 1st image may comprise M×n or m×N depending on scanning direction).
As to claim 19, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection device (Lee, FIGS. 2 and 4a, [0044], “rotary optical scanner 310” in association with “reflection-type image display device 200a”) further comprises a spin axis (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], spin axis defined by “rotary motor 314”), and the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”) is connected to the spin axis (Lee, see FIG. 4a, [0044], spin axis defined by “rotary motor 314”).
As to claim 20, Lee discloses the display system according to claim 19, wherein the reflection device (Lee, FIGS. 2 and 4a, [0044], “rotary optical scanner 310” in association with “reflection-type image display device 200a”) further comprises at least one connection member (Lee, see FIG. 4a, the receiving portion of “polygon mirror 312” corresponding to the gear of “rotary motor 314”), an end of the connection member is connected to the spin axis (Lee, see FIG. 4a, [0044], spin axis defined by “rotary motor 314”), and another end of the connection member is connected to the reflection element (Lee, FIG. 4a, [0044], “polygon mirror 312”).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0040991 A1, IDS).
As to claim 3, Lee does not explicitly teach the display system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined angle by which the reflection element rotates in each turn gradually decreases.
However, Lee teaches the concept regarding the operation principle with respect to why the predetermined angle by which the reflection element rotates in each turn gradually decreases (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “incline angles that the respective mirrors 312a form with the outer circumferential surfaces of the polygonal prism 312b, and the incline angles conform to the relation: θ1 ≥ θ2 … θ9 ≥ θ10”), when the rotating angle is constant.
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotating angle by “rotary motor 314” to gradually decrease when using constant “incline angle” for “mirrors 312”, as taught by Lee, in order to provide that “the quality of a projected image can be maintained even when a reflection-type image display device is simplified” (Lee, [0086]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0040991 A1, IDS) in view of Ouchi et al. (US 2003/0169376 A1).
As to claim 7, Lee does not teach the display system according to claim 4, wherein the reflection element comprises at least one reflection surface, the reflection surface is curved, along a rotational direction of the reflection element, a curvature of the reflection surface gradually increases.
However, Ouchi teaches the concept that the reflection element comprises at least one reflection surface, the reflection surface is curved, along a rotational direction of the reflection element (Ouchi, FIGS. 12A-12B, [0072], “Alternatively, the reflective surfaces may be curved”).
At the time of effective filing date, given that Lee teaches the concept that a curvature of the reflection surface may gradually increases if curved reflection surfaces are used (Lee, FIG. 4b, [0044], “incline angles that the respective mirrors 312a form with the outer circumferential surfaces of the polygonal prism 312b, and the incline angles conform to the relation: θ1 ≥ θ2 … θ9 ≥ θ10”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flat surface of “mirrors 312a” to be curved so that it may gradually increase, as taught by Ouchi, in order to provide “controlling the scrolling speed of R, G, and B light rays on the display device, for example to make it almost constant” (Ouchi, [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 9, the closest known prior art, i.e., Lee (US 2007/0040991 A1, IDS), Ouchi et al. (US 2003/0169376 A1), Myers et al. (US 2005/0231651 A1) and Taylor et al. (US 2019/0317329 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “a sequence of the multiple rows of pixels displayed by k frames of the first image corresponding to one of adjacent two frames of the second image is opposite to a sequence of the multiple rows of pixels displayed by k frames of the first image corresponding to the other of the adjacent two frames of the second image, and a rotational direction of the reflection element in one of displaying periods of the adjacent two frames of the second image is opposite to the rotational direction of the reflection element in the other of the displaying periods of the adjacent two frames of the second image”.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Myers et al. (US 2005/0231651 A1) teaches the concept of a “polygonal mirror 206” (FIG. 2); and Taylor et al. (US 2019/0317329 A1) teaches the concept of “first column of emitters emitting in a first band of light and second column of emitters emitting a second band of light which are offset along the first dimension” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao can be reached on (571) 272-7671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Feb. 18, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
***