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 05/07/2026 amended claims 1 and 5. Claims 1-8 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 05/07/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
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.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi (US 20200159093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wakabayashi teaches projector (1; Fig. 1-13) comprising: an image formation apparatus (108R/B/G) that forms image light from illumination light that enters the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G); a projection optical apparatus (112) comprising one or more lenses that projects the image light formed by the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G); an optical path shifter (2/3) that is disposed in an optical path of the image light between the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G) and the projection optical apparatus (112) and shifts the optical path of the image light with respect to a reference position where the image light is projected; a vibration detection sensor (7/72) disposed at a front end of the projection optical apparatus (112; Fig. 1) that detects vibration that affects the position where the projection optical apparatus (112) projects the image light; and a control apparatus (120, 121) that controls the optical path shifter (2/3), wherein the control apparatus (120, 121; Fig. 11 and 12) acquires a result of detection performed by the vibration detection sensor (7/72; Fig. 11; [0063]), generates a vibration waveform (V) having a phase opposite a phase of a waveform of the vibration (T) based on the acquired detection result (Fig. 9), generates a drive waveform (DS) that approximates to the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase (Fig. 10; [0058], [0062], [0067], [0072], [0074]), and drives the optical path shifter (2/3) based on the generated drive waveform (DS; [0054], [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Wakabayashi teaches a control apparatus (120, 121) that controls an optical path shifter (2/3) of a projector (1) including an image formation apparatus (108R/B/G) comprising at least one light modulation module that forms image light from illumination light that enters the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G), a projection optical apparatus (112) comprising one or more lenses that projects the image light formed by the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G), the optical path shifter (2/3) disposed in an optical path of the image light between the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G) and the projection optical apparatus (112) and shifting the optical path of the image light with respect to a reference position where the image light is projected, and a vibration detection sensor (7/72) disposed at a front end of the projection optical apparatus that detects vibration that affects the position where the projection optical apparatus (112) projects the image light, wherein the control apparatus (120, 121; Fig. 11 and 12) acquires a result of detection performed by the vibration detection sensor (7/72; Fig. 11; [0063]), generates a vibration waveform (V) having a phase opposite a phase of a waveform of the vibration (T) based on the acquired detection result, generates a drive waveform (DS) that approximates to the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase (Fig. 10; [0058], [0062], [0067], [0072], [0074]), and drives the optical path shifter (2/3) based on the generated drive waveform (DS; [0054], [0055]).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Wakabayashi further teaches the drive waveform (DS) is a trapezoidal waveform ([0059]), a top portion of the trapezoidal waveform approximates to an amount of displacement (V1) of the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase and corresponding to the top portion (Fig. 10), and a bottom portion of the trapezoidal waveform approximates to an amount of displacement (V1) of the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase and corresponding to the bottom portion (Fig. 10).
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 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Wakabayashi further teaches wherein when a frequency of swing motion of the image light projected by the projection optical apparatus (112) is at a predetermined frequency, the control apparatus (120, 121)/apparatus generates the drive waveform (DS) that approximates to the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase ([0054]).
Wakabayahsi does not teach the predetermined frequency to be 40Hz or lower.
It is well known in the art that the common frame rates are 24FPS, 25FPS, 30FPS, 50FPS, 60FPS, 120FPS, 144FPS, etc..
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the frequency of the swing motion to match the frame rate; because it is a matter of common sense. A mismatch between the frequency of the swing motion and the frame rate would cause unpleasant viewing experience.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi in view of Takada (US 20230089186 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Wakabayashi further teaches a potential of the top portion (V2) is set to be higher than the amount of displacement (V1) of the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase and corresponding to the top portion (ST6; Fig. 12).
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach a potential of the bottom portion is set to be lower than the amount of displacement (V1) of the vibration waveform (V) having the opposite phase and corresponding to the bottom portion.
Takada teaches having the displacement of the optical path shifter oscillating from negative displacement (D1) to positive displacement (D2) in the displacement waveform (Fig. 8) and the drive signal oscillates from negative current/voltage (A1) to positive current/voltage (A2) of the drive waveform (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wakabayashi with Tanada such that the drive signal oscillates from negative current/voltage (A1) to positive current/voltage (A2) of the drive waveform with increasing gain of the signal resulting in potential of the bottom portion being set to be lower than the amount of displacement of the vibration waveform having the opposite phase and corresponding to the bottom portion; because it allows better management of the unwanted resonance frequency to “suppress degradation of image quality” ([0140] of Tanada).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, applicant/s argue, “[c]laim 1 affirmatively recites the physical location of the claimed vibration detection sensor at the front end of the projection optical apparatus, which physically excludes the Wakabayashi internal sensor configuration” (Remarks; p. 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim 1 recites “a vibration detection sensor disposed at a front end of the projection optical apparatus.” The claim language of the claim 1 does not exclude the internal sensor configuration of Wakabayashi as asserted by the applicant/s. The above claim language only limits the location of the sensor in relation to the projection optical apparatus and nothing else. Furthermore, the neither the claim nor the specification defines the “front end” of the projection optical apparatus; hence for the purpose of examination the “front end” of the apparatus is interpreted as location in front of the projection optical apparatus (112) when view from the image formation apparatus (108R/B/G).
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