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 § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 claim 7, the ‘two fifth intersection points’ are defined in the same way as the ‘two first intersection points’, namely ‘as intersections between an outer contour of the second opening and the first central axis’ see lines 5-7 for the definition of the two first intersection points and lines 13-14 for the definition of the two fifth intersection points. This leads to a contradiction in the claim wherein the first intersection points cannot possibly be located between the two fifth intersection points if they are defined in the same way, they will always completely overlap and have the same distance between the fifth and first intersection points. Examiner notes that in paragraph 0035 of the USPGPub of this application the fifth intersection points are defined with reference to a ‘second projection region’ rather than the second opening, and this language would be consistent with the ‘orthographic projection of the fourth opening on the first surface’ which is defined as the second projection region in lines 4-5 of claim 7. For the purpose of examination the claimed ‘two fifth intersection points’ will be interpreted as ‘intersections between he outer contour of the second projection region and the first central axis’.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iechika et al. (US 2005/0146689 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Iechika teaches a projection device (figure 1 shows the projections system 90A) comprising an illumination system (100, figure 1; paragraph 0048); an optical engine module (500, figure 1, see also the structure of figure 7 which is a close up of the optical engine module), and a projection lens (420, figure 1), wherein:
The illumination system is used to provide an illumination beam (paragraph 0049);
The optical engine module is disposed on a transmission path of the illumination beam (see 500, figure 1) and is used to convert the illumination beam into an image beam (via 310R-B, figure 1, paragraph 0048), and the optical engine module comprises a prism set (400, figure 1), a light valve (310R-310B, modulators are light valves, paragraph 0048), and an absorption layer (20, figure 7), wherein
The prism set has a first surface (lower surface facing negative z direction in figure 7);
A light valve is disposed on a side of the first surface of the prism set (see 310G, figure 7), the light valve comprises a protection case (330, figure 7 and 312, figure 3) and an optical surface (311, figure 3), the protection case comprises a first opening (332, figure 3; paragraph 0061) and the optical surface is exposed from the first opening (d2, figure 7); and
The absorption layer is disposed on the first surface of the prism set (20, 400, figure 7), and the absorption layer comprises a second opening (d3, figure 7), wherein an area of the second opening is less than the area of the first opening (paragraph 0077); and
The projection lens is disposed on a transmission path of the image beam and is used to project the image beam out of the projection device (see 420 and 400, figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Iechika teaches an orthographic projection of the optical surface of the light valve on the first surface is a light valve projection region having a first central axis and a second central axis perpendicular to each other (X and Y axes in figure 3), and an orthographic projection of the first opening (331, figure 3) on the first surface is a first projection region, wherein two first intersection points are intersections between an outer contour of the first projection region and the first central axis, two second intersection points are intersections between an outer contour of the first projection region and the first central axis (Y axis figure 7), the first two intersection points are located between the two second intersection points (see paragraph 0074), a third intersection point is one of intersection between the outer contour of the second opening and the second central axis, a fourth intersection point is one of intersections between the outer contour of the first projection region and the second central axis (X axis, figure 7), and the third intersection point is located between the fourth intersection point and a light valve geometric center of the light valve projection region (paragraph 0074, d1 < d3 < d2 in both the x and y directions).
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) 2-3, 5-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iechika et al. (US 2005/0146689 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Iechika does not specify in the embodiment relied upon a reflection layer disposed on the absorption layer, wherein the absorption layer is located between the reflection layer and the prism set, the reflection layer comprises a third opening, and the third opening completely overlaps with the second opening.
Iechika teaches in an alternative embodiment a reflection layer (10, figure 5, element 10 is a metal plate paragraph 0065 and so would be reflective). The absorption layer (20) is printed onto the prism, therefore upon modification to use the alternative douser in addition to the absorption layer, the douser would be first, then the absorption layer then the prism. Furthermore regarding the third opening completely overlapping the second opening, the douser, 10, also has the same dimension d3 for it's opening as the print layer 20.
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 Iechika’s first embodiment with the douser of the second embodiment in order to better remove heat from the optical system and prevent thermal degradation (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 3, Iechika discloses the claimed invention except for specifying the reflectivity of the reflection layer is more than 3 times a reflectivity of the absorption layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the reflectivity of the reflection layer more than 3 times a reflectivity of the absorption layer, 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 Iechika to use a higher reflectivity in the douser in order to prevent heat buildup in the optical system that would degrade image performance.
Regarding claim 5, Iechika does not teach in the embodiment relied upon a light shielding element disposed between the prism set and the light valve, wherein the light shielding element has a fourth opening, and the fourth opening overlaps with the second opening.
Iechika teaches in an alternative embodiment a light shielding element (10, figure 5) disposed between the prism set and the light valve (see figure 5, element 342, 10, then 400).. Furthermore regarding the fourth opening overlapping the second opening, the douser, 10, also has the same dimension d3 for it's opening as the print layer 20.
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 Iechika’s first embodiment with the douser of the second embodiment in order to better remove heat from the optical system and prevent thermal degradation (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Iechika teaches there claimed invention except for specifying that the light shielding element is closer to the light valve than the absorption layer, and that the interval between the light shielding element and the light valve is between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put the light shielding element is closer to the light valve than the absorption layer, and to make the interval between the light shielding element and the light valve between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm, 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 light shield of Iechika to be closer to the light valve in order to better transfer heat from a more sensitive component.
Regarding claim 7, Iechika teaches an orthographic projection of the optical surface of the light valve on the first surface is a light valve projection region having a first central axis and a second central axis perpendicular to each other (X and Y axes in figure 3), and an orthographic projection of the first opening (331, figure 3) on the first surface is a first projection region, wherein two first intersection points are intersections between an outer contour of the first projection region and the first central axis, two second intersection points are intersections between an outer contour of the first projection region and the first central axis (Y axis figure 7), the first two intersection points are located between the two second intersection points (see paragraph 0074), a third intersection point is one of intersection between the outer contour of the second opening and the second central axis, a fourth intersection point is one of intersections between the outer contour of the first projection region and the second central axis (X axis, figure 7), and the third intersection point is located between the fourth intersection point and a light valve geometric center of the light valve projection region (paragraph 0074, d1 < d3 < d2 in both the x and y directions). Iechika further teaches an orthographic projection of the fourth opening on the first surface is the second projection region (implicit that the fourth opening of the light shield would also have an orthographic projection on the first surface similar to the paint (20) in the primary embodiment), two fifth intersection points are intersections between the outer contour of the second projection region and the first central axis (implicit that the orthographic projection of the fourth opening would also have these intersecting points with the (y axis shown in figure 5), and a sixth intersection point is one of intersections between the outer contour of the second projection region and the second central axis (also implicit that the orthographic projection of the fourth opening would have this intersecting point with the x-axis).
Iechika therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the first intersection points are between the fifth intersection points and the third intersection point is between the sixth intersection point and the light valve geometric center. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first intersection points be between the fifth intersection points and the third intersection point be between the sixth intersection point and the light valve geometric center, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 Iechika to make the opening of the light shield bigger than the opening of the absorbing paint in order to make a sharper projection image.
Regarding claim 11, Iechika teaches the projection lens has an aperture opening (implicit in projection lenses). Iechika further teaches an orthographic projection of the aperture opening on the first surface is a lens projection region (implicit that the aperture of the projection lens has some orthographic projection onto the first surface which can be called the projection region), the second opening has a second opening geometric center (all opening planar bounded objects have geometric centers), and the orthographic projection of the optical surface of the light valve on the first surface is a light valve projection region having a light valve geometric center (implicit in the same way as the aperture opening orthographic projection just from the opposite direction to the first surface).
Iechika therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying wherein the light valve geometric center is located between the lens geometric center and the second opening geometric center. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put the light valve geometric center between the lens geometric center and the second opening geometric center since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Iechika to make the projection lens and prism off axis in order to optimize space in the projection system.
Regarding claim 12, Iechika teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that 1.15 < (D + H1)/H1 < 1.3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Iechika to satisfy the condition 1.15 < (D + H1)/H1 < 1.3, since it has been held hat 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 display of Iechika to make the projection lens and prism off axis in order to optimize space in the projection system.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iechika et al. (US 2005/0146689 A1) in view of Tsai (US 2021/0124245 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Iechika does not teach the prism set has a second surface and a third surface and the illumination beam from the illumination system enters the prism set from the second surface and leaves the prism set from the first surface, the image beam from the light valve enters the prism set from the first surface and leaves the prism set from the third surface.
Tsai teaches the prism set has a second surface (surface 11, figure 1) and a third surface (13, figure 1) and the illumination beam (lambda_0, figure 1) from the illumination system enters the prism set from the second surface and leaves the prism set from the first surface (12, figure 1), the image beam (lambda_1, figure 1) from the light valve enters the prism set from the first surface and leaves the prism set from the third surface (paragraph 0045).
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 Iechika to use the DMD of Tsai in order to reduce the number of modulators in the projection system.
Regarding claim 10 Iechika does not teach the projection lens and the prism set of the optical engine module are disposed off axis.
Tsai teaches the projection lens and the prism set of the optical engine module are disposed off axis (see lambda_1, figure 1).
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 Iechika to use the off axis prism set and projection lens of Tsai n order to optimize space in the projector.
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 2/13/2026