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 § 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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hori teaches a light source (1a, figure 1);
A collimator (1b, figure 1) configured to collimate the first light emitted from the light source (paragraph 0046; paraboloid of revolution would be collimating as shown in figure 1);
A first multi-lens array (2, figure 1) having a plurality of first small lenses (2a, 2b, figure 1) configured to divide the first light collimated by the collimator into a plurality of partial pencils of light (paragraph 0037; ‘The first lens cells 2a and 2b individually form a secondary light source image in the vicinity of the second multi-lens array 3’);
A second multi-lens array (3, figure 1) having a plurality of second small lenses (3a, figure 1) placed to correspond to the respective plurality of light incident regions of the first multi-lens array (paragraph 0037);
A superimposing lens (5, figure 1, as shown in figure 1, the function of the lens is to superimpose all the light from array 3 across the modulator element 6) configured to superimpose the plurality of partial pencils of light emitted from the respective plurality of second small lenses of the second multi-lens array onto an illumination area (the surface of the modulator 6 is the illumination area).
A light modulator (element 6, figure 1; paragraph 0036) containing an image formation area as the illumination area and configure to modulate light emitted from the superimposing lens, wherein
The partial pencils of light emitted from the respective at least two first small lenses contained in the corresponding single light incident region enter the single second small lens (see figure 11 and 12 for the 2:1 correspondence between the pencils of light emitted by 2a-b and incident on 3a; in paragraph 0037 it is stated that the first lens cells 2a and 2b individually form a secondary light source image in the vicinity of the second multi lens array 3, and as shown in figure 11, the principal axes of these individual light sources images are incident to a single element 3a, so it logically follows that two individual ‘pencils of light’, i.e. the individual illumination beams subdivided by the first lens array are incident to one lens element [small lens] in the second lens array; see also paragraph 0040, wherein the first lens array corresponds at least 2:1 to the polarization conversion unit, and the second lens array is 1:1 with the polarization conversion unit which also means the first array would be 2:1 with the second lens array).
Regarding claim 6, Hori teaches in the light incident region and the second small lens corresponding to each other, a planar shape of the second small lens is larger thana planar shape of the light incident region (since the light is collimated by 1b, it follows from the description in paragraph 0040, wherein the first lens array corresponds at least 2:1 to the polarization conversion unit, and the second lens array is 1:1 with the polarization conversion unit which also means the first array would be 2:1 with the second lens array, that the planar shape of the second small lens has to be larger than a planar shape of the light incident region).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Abu-Ageel (US 2005/0286123 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hori does not specify that the respective plurality of second small lenses are aspheric lenses.
Abu-Ageel teaches the respective plurality of second small lenses are aspheric lenses (paragraph 0129).
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 Hori to use the aspheric micro-lenses of Abu-Ageel in order to reduce spherical aberration in the illumination system (paragraph 0129).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Ohkawa et al. (US 2022/0382138 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hori does not specify that the light source has a plurality of light emitters disposed to correspond to the respective plurality of first small lenses of the first multi-lens array and configured to emit light towards the corresponding first small lenses.
Ohkawa teaches the light source has a plurality of light emitters (11, figure 7) disposed to correspond to the respective plurality of first small lenses of the first multi-lens array and configured to emit light towards the corresponding first small lenses (12, figure 7; paragraph 0081).
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 Hori to use the plural LEDs of Ohkawa in order to improve color purity and reproducibility in the projector system.
Regarding claim 4, Hori teaches a polarization conversion element (4, figure 11) disposed between the second multi-lens array and the superimposing lens (see 3 and 5, which sandwich 4 in figure 1) configured to convert a polarization direction of a light emitted from the second multi-lens array, wherein
The polarization converter has a plurality of incident openings (4b, figure 11) entered by the lights output from the respective plurality of second small lenses of the second multi-lens array, and
At least the two first small lenses in the single light incident region of the first multi-lens array are eccentrically provided to enter the partial pencils of light emitted from the respective first small lenses into the single incident openings of the polarization converter via the corresponding single second small lens (see ray trace in figure 11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Ohkawa et al. (US 2022/0382138 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Plut (US 2005/0041000 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hori in view of Ohkawa does not specify the controller configured to control the driving of the plurality of light emitters, wherein the controller drives the plurality of light emitters to make light emission intensity of a part of the light emitters different form light emission intensity of another part of the light emitters.
Plut teaches the controller configured to control the driving of the plurality of light emitters, wherein the controller drives the plurality of light emitters to make light emission intensity of a part of the light emitters different form light emission intensity of another part of the light emitters (see figures 5A-5C).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Hori in view of Ohkawa to use the individual light control of Plut in order to prevent damage to the light emitters from overheating and damaging the light emitter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Akiyama (US 2005/0157267 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hori does not specify a first aspect ratio of the light incident region, second aspect ratios of the respective first small lenses in the light incident region, and a third aspect ratio of the image formation area of the light modulator are equal.
Akiyama teaches a first aspect ratio of the light incident region, second aspect ratios of the respective first small lenses in the light incident region, and a third aspect ratio of the image formation area of the light modulator are equal (paragraph 0063).
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 Hori to use the aspect ratio matched microlens elements of Akiyama in order to prevent stray light in the projection system for adversely affecting the projected image.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Kojima (US 2007/0171646 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hori does not specify that the first aspect ratios of the respective first small lenses in the light incident region are different from a second aspect ratio of the image formation area of the light modulator and a third aspect ratio of the light incident region is equal to the second aspect ratio of the image formation are of the light modulator.
Kojima teaches the first aspect ratios of the respective first small lenses in the light incident region are different from a second aspect ratio of the image formation area of the light modulator (paragraph 0042) and a third aspect ratio of the light incident region is equal to the second aspect ratio of the image formation are of the light modulator (the aspect ratio of the light incident region could be arbitrarily assigned to match the aspect ratio of the image formation area of the light modulator).
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 Hori to use the aspect ratio of fly eye lenses of Kojima to improve light homogeneity in the projection system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2002/0126259 A1) in view of Uehara (US 2022/0057701 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hori does not teach an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a distance between the first multi-lens array and the second multi-lens array.
Uehara teaches an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a distance between the first multi-lens array and the second multi-lens array (paragraph 0116).
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 Hori to include the displacement mechanism of Uehara in order to optimize homogeneity in the projection system.
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 2/20/2026