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 .
Status
The filing on 05/28/2026 amended claims 1, 10-11, 18, 25, 27-28, 35, and 38-39. Claims 1-2 and 4-45 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-25, 28-35 and 38-45 are rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 11, 18, 28, 35, and 38. Claims 26, 27, 36, and 37 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.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-25, 28-35, and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 5597223 A) in view of Cole (US 20050128605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a method (Fig. 9-11) comprising: setting a projector (Fig. 6A, 6B, 12, 25, 35, 37) in a theatre to emit projected light representing a projected image onto a screen (SC) in the theatre such that a light level of the projected light is at a target light level (col. 16, line 66-col. 7 line 18; col. 18, lines 24-67); setting a lens aperture element (111) in a projection lens (110) of the projector in the theatre to change an image contrast of the projected image; and in response to setting the lens aperture element (111), adjusting a setting for a light emitter (101-104) in the projector (by controlling stop 104) such that the light level of the projected light is at the target light level (S207; col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60). Watanabe further teaches changing the first lens aperture having a first light loss from the projection lens and to a second lens aperture having a second light loss from the projection lens that is different from the first light loss, wherein the first lens aperture has a first aperture size, a first aperture shape, and a first position of aperture in the projection lens, wherein the second lens aperture has a second aperture size, a second aperture shape, and a second position of aperture in the projection lens, and wherein at least one of the second aperture size is different than the first aperture size, the second aperture shape is different than the first aperture shape, or the second position is different than the first position (Fig. 7A-8C; col. 12 lines 1-18, col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach removing and replacing the first lens aperture element with a second lens aperture element.
Cole teaches having an aperture wheel (208, 408) for replacing different lens aperture elements (Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe with Cole; because Cole provides a more robust and durable aperture mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in adjusting the setting (by controlling stop 104) for the light emitter (101-104) to a maximum output for the target light level, and replacing the lens aperture element (111) to maintain the target light level (col. 24, lines 31-48 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light is a level of projected light that is reflected off the screen (SC; col. 15, lines 24-45 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light is a level of projected light that passes through an optical element (128 of Watanabe) that is external to the projection lens (110 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in replacing the lens aperture element (111 of Watanabe) to change image contrast of the projected image (col. 7, lines 28 – 42 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element is removable from the projection lens (Fig. 3, 4 of Cole).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in replacing the lens aperture element (111) includes replacing the lens aperture element (111) with a lens element that has an adjustable aperture setting that is continuously adjustable during projection (col. 17 line 61 – col. 18 line 7 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe inherently teaches the screen (SC) has a bidirectional reflectance distribution function that increases brightness from a location on the screen (SC) for at least one seat in an audience of the theatre.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe teaches a projector (Fig. 6A, 6B, 12, 25, 35, 37) configured to be positioned in a theatre, the projector comprising: a light emitter (101-104) configured to emit, toward a screen (SC) in the theatre, projected light that represents a projected image such that a light level of the projected light is at a target light level; a light controller (121) configured to: determine a difference between the light level and the target light level; determine a change to the light emitter (101-104) based on the difference; and set a lens aperture element (111) based on the difference (Fig. 9-11; col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60); and a projection lens (110) that includes the lens aperture element (111). Watanabe further teaches changing the first lens aperture having a first light loss from the projection lens and to a second lens aperture having a second light loss from the projection lens that is different from the first light loss, wherein the first lens aperture has a first aperture size, a first aperture shape, and a first position of aperture in the projection lens, wherein the second lens aperture has a second aperture size, a second aperture shape, and a second position of aperture in the projection lens, and wherein at least one of the second aperture size is different than the first aperture size, the second aperture shape is different than the first aperture shape, or the second position is different than the first position (Fig. 7A-8C; col. 12 lines 1-18, col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach removing and replacing the first lens aperture element with a second lens aperture element.
Cole teaches having an aperture wheel (208, 408) for replacing different lens aperture elements (Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe with Cole; because Cole provides a more robust and durable aperture mechanism.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light being a level of projected light that is reflected off of the screen (SC; col. 15, lines 24-45 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light is a level of projected light that passes through an optical element (128 of Watanabe) that is external to the projection lens (110 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element (111 of Watanabe) is replacing to change image contrast of the projected image (col. 7, lines 28 – 42 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element is removable from the projection lens (Fig. 3, 4 of Cole).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element (111) that is replaceable has an aperture setting that is continuously adjustable during projection (col. 17 line 61 – col. 18 line 7 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe inherently teaches the screen (SC) has a bidirectional reflectance distribution function configured to increase brightness from a location on the screen (SC) for at least one seat in an audience of the theatre.
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe teaches a method (Fig. 9-11) comprising: determining a difference between a light level of projected light in a theatre and a target light level, the projected light being emitted by a projector in the theatre and representing a projected image (col. 16, line 66-col. 7 line 18; col. 18, lines 24-67); determining an adjustment to a lens aperture element (111) of a projection lens (110) in the projector based on the difference between the light level and the target light level and to adjust image contrast of the projected image on a screen (SC); determining an adjustment (by controlling stop 104) to a light emitter (101-104) in the projector based on the difference between the light level and the target light level; and outputting the adjustment (S207; col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60). Watanabe further teaches changing the first lens aperture having a first light loss from the projection lens and to a second lens aperture having a second light loss from the projection lens that is different from the first light loss, wherein the first lens aperture has a first aperture size, a first aperture shape, and a first position of aperture in the projection lens, wherein the second lens aperture has a second aperture size, a second aperture shape, and a second position of aperture in the projection lens, and wherein at least one of the second aperture size is different than the first aperture size, the second aperture shape is different than the first aperture shape, or the second position is different than the first position (Fig. 7A-8C; col. 12 lines 1-18, col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach removing and replacing the first lens aperture element with a second lens aperture element.
Cole teaches having an aperture wheel (208, 408) for replacing different lens aperture elements (Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe with Cole; because Cole provides a more robust and durable aperture mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light is a level of projected light that is reflected off of the screen (SC; col. 15, lines 24-45 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light level of the projected light is a level of projected light that passes through an optical element (128 of Watanabe) that is external to the projection lens (110 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in determining the adjustment to the lens aperture element (111) includes determining the adjustment of a replaceable aperture element such that the projected light reflected by the screen (SC) is set to the target light level (col. 24, lines 31-48 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element is removable from the projection lens (Fig. 3, 4 of Cole).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the lens aperture element (111) that is replaceable has includes an aperture setting that is continuously adjustable during projection (col. 17 line 61 – col. 18 line 7 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe inherently teaches the screen (SC) has a bidirectional reflectance distribution function that increases brightness from a location on the screen (SC) for at least one seat in an audience of the theatre.
Regarding claim 28, Watanabe teaches a light controller (121; Fig. 6A, 6B, 12, 25, 35, 37) comprising: a light meter (128) configured to measure light levels of projected light in a theatre and that represents a projected image, the projected light being emitted from a projector (Fig. 6A, 6B, 12, 25, 35, 37) in the theatre; a processor (MP); and a non-transitory memory (SM) including instructions that are executable by the processor (MP) for causing the processor (MP; col. 16, lines 34-39) to: receive, from the light meter (128), a first light level; determine a difference between the first light level and a target light level; determine an adjustment to a lens aperture element (111) of a projection lens (110) in the projector based on the difference between the first light level and the target light level and to adjust image contrast of the projected image on a screen (SC) in the theatre; and output the adjustment of the replaceable lens aperture element (111; col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60). Watanabe further teaches changing the first lens aperture having a first light loss from the projection lens and to a second lens aperture having a second light loss from the projection lens that is different from the first light loss, wherein the first lens aperture has a first aperture size, a first aperture shape, and a first position of aperture in the projection lens, wherein the second lens aperture has a second aperture size, a second aperture shape, and a second position of aperture in the projection lens, and wherein at least one of the second aperture size is different than the first aperture size, the second aperture shape is different than the first aperture shape, or the second position is different than the first position (Fig. 7A-8C; col. 12 lines 1-18, col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach removing and replacing the first lens aperture element with a second lens aperture element.
Cole teaches having an aperture wheel (208, 408) for replacing different lens aperture elements (Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe with Cole; because Cole provides a more robust and durable aperture mechanism.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light levels of the projected light are levels of projected light that are reflected off of the screen (SC; col. 15, lines 24-45 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the light levels of the projected light are levels of projected light that pass through an optical element (optics in 128 of Watanabe) that is external to the projection lens (110 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the instructions are further executable by the processor (MP of Watanabe) for causing the processor (MP of Watanabe) to determine the adjustment to the replaceable lens aperture element such that the projected light reflected by the screen (SC) is set to the target light level (col. 16, lines 34-39 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the replaceable lens aperture element is removable from the projection lens (Fig. 3, 4 of Cole).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the replaceable lens aperture element (111) has an aperture setting that is continuously adjustable during projection (col. 17 line 61 – col. 18 line 7 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 34, Watanabe inherently teaches the screen (SC) has a bidirectional reflectance distribution function that increases brightness from a location on the screen (SC) for at least one seat in an audience of the theatre.
Regarding claims 10, 25 and 35, the combination of Watanabe and Cole consequently results in the first lens aperture element has a first light loss and the second lens aperture element has a second light loss, and wherein the first light loss is different from the second light loss based on a/the difference between the first shape and the second shape (Fig. 7A-8C of Watanabe; Fig. 3 and 4 of Cole).
Regarding claims 42-45, the combination of Watanabe, Miao and Cole consequently teaches the lens aperture element is removable in a theatre environment (Fig. 3, 4 of Cole).
Claims 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Miao (US 20200177854 A1) and in further view of Cole.
Regarding claim 38, Watanabe teaches a system (Fig. 6A, 6B, 12, 25, 35, 37) comprising: a processor (MP); and a non-transitory computer-readable memory (SM) including instructions that are executable by the processor (MP) for causing the processor (MP) to: determine a light level for a projector; and determine, based on the light level, a lens aperture element (111) in a projection lens (110) of the projector to adjust image contrast of a projected image in projected light emitted by the projector (111; col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60). Watanabe further teaches changing the first lens aperture having a first light loss from the projection lens and to a second lens aperture having a second light loss from the projection lens that is different from the first light loss, wherein the first lens aperture has a first aperture size, a first aperture shape, and a first position of aperture in the projection lens, wherein the second lens aperture has a second aperture size, a second aperture shape, and a second position of aperture in the projection lens, and wherein at least one of the second aperture size is different than the first aperture size, the second aperture shape is different than the first aperture shape, or the second position is different than the first position (Fig. 7A-8C; col. 12 lines 1-18, col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach receiving theatre specifications for a theatre.
Miao teaches receiving theatre specifications for a theatre and adjust brightness accordingly ([0011], [0022]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe with Miao; because it ensures the optimal brightness of the projected images to improve viewers’ experience.
Neither Watanabe nor Miao teaches removing and replacing the first lens aperture element with a second lens aperture element.
Cole teaches having an aperture wheel (208, 408) for replacing different lens aperture elements (Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Watanabe and Miao with Cole; because Cole provides a more robust and durable aperture mechanism.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Watanabe and Miao with Cole consequently results in the theatre specifications comprise: size of a screen (SC) in the theatre; distance between the screen (SC) and the projector and, inherently, maximum light level for the projector.
Neither Watanabe, Miao, nor Cole explicitly teaches the reflectivity of the screen (SC) being factor.
It is well known in the art that the screen reflectivity is a factor in brightness of the projected image.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the screen reflectivity being a factor; because it is a matter of common sense.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Watanabe, Miao and Cole consequently teaches the projector is adapted to produce a target light level of projected light that reflects off of a screen (SC) in the theatre (col. 15, lines 24-45 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Watanabe, Miao and Cole consequently teaches the instructions are further executable by the processor (MP) for causing the processor (MP) to determine, based on the light level, a setting for a light emitter (101-104) in the projector (col. 12, lines 1-18, col. 15, lines 24-45, col. 17, lines 33-60 of Watanabe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 27, 36, and 37 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.
Regarding claims 26 and 36, the closest prior art references, Watanabe, Cole, and Miao, do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another: “determining the adjustment to the lens aperture element is based on a change of projected light reflected by the screen due to: a size of the screen displaying the projected light; an aspect ratio of the projected image; optical degradation of the lens aperture element that is replaceable; light reduction of a projection light source in the projector; light reduction received by the projection lens; light reduction from screen degradation; color stability of the projector; and brightness stability of the projector” (claim 26) and, similarly, “the instructions are further executable by the processor for causing the processor to determine the adjustment of the replaceable lens aperture element based on a change of projected light reflected by the screen due to: a size of the screen displaying the projected light; an aspect ratio of the projected image; optical degradation of the replaceable lens aperture element; light reduction of a projection light source in the projector; light reduction received by the projection lens; light reduction from screen degradation; color stability of the projector; and brightness stability of the projector” (claim 36). Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claims 26 and 36 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 27 and 37 depend on claims 26 and 36, respectively; hence they are also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, 18, 28, 35, and 38 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights