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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11-2-23, 11-6-23, and 9-7-25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Xu (US20180035087).
Re claim 1, Xu teaches for example in fig. 1-5, a light source apparatus, comprising: a plurality of light source units (110a-d) that respectively emits light in respective colors (para. 0035); a light-combining/splitting unit (120) that combines/splits light emitted from each of the plurality of light source units (para. 0035); at least one light-receiving unit (130) that receives light emitted from the light-combining/splitting unit (para. 0035); and a control unit (180) that switches activation and deactivation of each of the plurality of light source units (para. 0035, 0041), wherein the control unit stops each of the plurality of light source units on a basis of light received by the light-receiving unit (para. 0035, 0041).
Re claim 7, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-combining/splitting unit has wavelength dependency (para. 0035).
Re claim 9, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-combining/splitting unit receives laser light (abstract).
Re claim 11, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-combining/splitting unit has a dichroic mirror (para. 0035).
Re claim 14, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the control unit has a comparator that compares a signal value of an analog signal based on an amount of light of light received by the light-receiving unit with a threshold value (para. 0039, 0050, 0062).
Re claim 15, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the threshold value is lower than a signal value of an analog signal based on an amount of light that is an accessible emission limit (para. 0043).
Re claim 16, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, light on an optical path toward outside of the light source apparatus out of a plurality of optical paths emitted from the light-combining/splitting unit is projected onto a retina of a user (para. 0040).
Re claim 17, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, an image display apparatus, comprising: the light source apparatus; and an objective optical unit (521) that receives light emitted from the light source apparatus (para. 0040, 0069) and emits the light to a retina of a user (para. 0040, 0069).
Re claim 18, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light source apparatus (530) and the objective optical unit (521) are separated from each other (fig. 5).
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 of this title, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20180035087) in view of Arakida et al. (US20050053330).
Re claim 10, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-combining/splitting unit (120).
But, Xu fails to explicitly teach an optical waveguide.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Arakida et al. teaches for example in fig. 21a, an optical waveguide (83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Xu with Arakida et al. in order to provide a low-cost optical waveguide which has high light entrance efficiency, as taught by Arakida et al. (para. 0018).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20180035087) in view of Muto (JP2010107615, of record).
Re claim 12, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-combining/splitting unit has a dichroic mirror (para. 0035).
But, Xu fails to explicitly teach a dichroic prism.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Muto teaches for example in fig. 3, a dichroic prism (211, 212, 213). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the light-combining/splitting unit, since dichroic mirrors and dichroic prisms are known equivalents in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Xu with Muto in order to receive multiple laser beams individually and output an output signal in accordance with the received light quantity, as taught by Muto (abstract).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US20180035087).
Re claim 13, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Xu further teaches for example in fig. 1-5, the light-receiving unit (120).
But, Xu fails to explicitly teach a silicon photodiode.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the light receiving unit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Xu in order to detect a power or intensity of laser light, as taught by Xu (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in dependent claims 2 and 8.
Specifically regarding claim 2, Xu (US20180035087) teaches the state of the art of a light source apparatus.
But, Xu fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including a filter unit that is disposed on an optical path of light emitted from the light-combining/splitting unit and has wavelength dependency, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 8, Xu (US20180035087) teaches the state of the art of a light source apparatus.
But, Xu fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the light-combining/splitting unit has spectral properties that an amount of light of blue light emitted to the light-receiving unit is larger than an amount of light of each of red light and green light, as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2-14-26