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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Kawamura et al. (US 2019/0004408 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0153535 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Kawamura teaches an illumination system (2, figure 21) configured to output an illumination light beam (paragraph 0153);
A light homogenization module (6, figure 21) disposed on a transmission path of the illumination light beam and homogenizing the illumination light beam, wherein the light homogenization module comprises:
An integration rod (6, figure 24-2) having a light inlet (7, figure 24-2; paragraph 0137);
A first diffusively reflective element (9, disposed adjacent to end 8, figure 24-2; paragraph 0083; paragraph 0093 the particles are metal); and
A second diffusively reflective element (9, disposed adjacent to end 7, figure 24-2; paragraph 0083) arranged adjacent to the first diffusively scattering element, wherein the second diffusively reflective element is disposed between he first diffusively reflective element and the light inlet of the integration rod (see annotated figure 24-2 below), and a haze of the first diffusively reflective element is greater than a haze of the second diffusively reflective element (paragraph 0083, since the concentration of the same type of particles for the first and second section is higher in the first section, the haze will be higher in the first section);
A light valve (78, figure 21) disposed on a transmission path of the illumination light beam homogenized by the light homogenization light module, and the light valve converting the illumination beam into an image beam (paragraph 0157); and
A projection lens (72, figure 21) disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawamura does not specify that the diffusively reflective element is disposed on the inner surface of the integration rod.
Lin teaches a hollow integration rod wherein the scattering particles are disposed on the inner side surfaces of the hollow integration rod (see 213, figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Kawamura to use a hollow integration rod as shown in Lin in order to prevent the scattered light from leaking out of a solid TIR reflecting tunnel.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Kawamura further teaches that the distance from an end of the first diffusively reflective element away from the light inlet to the light inlet is less than half of a length of the integration rod (since the sections for the first and second diffusively reflective elements can be set arbitrarily in Kawamura, one can assign the area of the first diffusively reflective element so that the end of the first diffusively reflective element away from the light inlet to the light inlet is less than half the length of the integration rod).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Kawamura teaches that the first diffusively reflective element and the second diffusively reflective element have the same length (the length dividing the first and second sections can be arbitrarily set in Kawamura to be so that each occupies the same length of the integrator, figure 24-2).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Kawamura in view of Lin teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the first diffusively reflective element is disposed at a place 17.33 millimeters to 22.69 millimeters away from the light inlet, and the second diffusively reflective element is disposed at a place 12.31 millimeters to 17.33 millimeters away from the light inlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the first diffusively reflective element disposed at a place 17.33 millimeters to 22.69 millimeters away from the light inlet, and the second diffusively reflective element disposed at a place 12.31 millimeters to 17.33 millimeters away from the light inlet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Kawamura in view of Lin to place the first and second diffusively reflective elements in the claimed range in order to improve homogenization performance in the light tunnel for bigger projection apparatuses.
Regarding claim 6 and 12, Kawamura in view of Lin teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the integrator rod comprises a first portion, a second portion, a third portion and a fourth portion assembled together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Kawamura in view of Lin to make the integrator of 4 parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Furthermore these parts can be assigned arbitrarily in Kawamura as long the second diffuser is before a hazier first diffuser in the integrator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Kawamura in view of Lin to use the separate parts in assembly in order to make the diffusive structure easier to manufacture.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2019/0004408 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0153535 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Etienne et al. (US 2018/0095330 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and 9, Kawamura in view of Lin does not specify that the first diffusively reflective element and the second diffusively reflective element have different roughnesses.
Etienne teaches the first diffusively reflective element and the second diffusively reflective element have different roughnesses (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Kawamura in view of Lin to use the different roughnesses of the first and second diffuser as taught in Etienne in order to improve light output uniformity (paragraph 0027).
Conclusion
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 1/29/2026