DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 206 in fig.83, 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 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Suga discloses a light source module (see 100 and 102 in fig.1; also see fig.3 or fig.8), comprising: a light emitting element (see 100), configured to provide a first beam; and a light splitting module (206 in fig.8), configured to convert the first beam into a plurality of light splitting beams (see the beam reflected and the beam transmitted in fig.3 and fig.8), wherein the light splitting module comprises a first light splitting element (comprised by 1 206 in fig.8 ), a first optical element (first optical above or 211), and a reflective element ( 226 in fig.8 or see reflector above), wherein the first light splitting element (comprised by 206 in fig.8) is disposed on a transmission path of the first beam, and is configured to partially reflect the first beam to form a first light splitting beam and partially transmit the first beam to form a second beam, wherein the first light splitting element does not split the first beam based on polarization components of the first beam; the first optical element (see first optical above or 211) is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam (see the beam that exits 211), and is configured to change a polarization state of the second beam (see the operation of the half wave plate 211 or see second beam above); and the reflective element (226 in fig.8; furthermore, DMD 500 ) is disposed on a transmission path of the first light splitting beam or a transmission path of at least part of the second beam (see the second beam above and 226 in fig.8); wherein the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam (see the first split above) and the at least part of the second beam (see the see the second beam above).
With respect to claim 12, Suga discloses a projection device (see fig.1), comprising: an illumination system (see 100 and 200 in fig.1), configured to provide an illumination beam, the illumination system comprises at least one light source module (see 100), and the at least one light source module comprises a light emitting element (see 100), configured to provide a first beam; and a light splitting module (200), configured to convert the first beam into a plurality of light splitting beams (see the beam reflected and the beam transmitted in fig.3), wherein the light splitting module comprises a first light splitting element (206 in fig.8), a first optical element (211), and a reflective element (226 in fig.8), wherein the first light splitting element (206 in fig.8) is disposed on a transmission path of the first beam, and is configured to partially reflect the first beam to form a first light splitting beam and partially transmit the first beam to form a second beam, wherein the first light splitting element does not split the first beam based on polarization components of the first beam; the first optical element (211) is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam (see the beam that exits 211), and is configured to change a polarization state of the second beam (see the operation of the halfwave plate 211); and the reflective element (226 in fig.8) is disposed on a transmission path of the first light splitting beam or a transmission path of at least part of the second beam (226 in fig.8); wherein the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam (see the reflected beam) and the at least part of the second beam (see the transmitted beam); and at least one light valve (see DMD 500 in fig.1), disposed on a transmission path of the illumination beam (see the position of DMD 500) and configured to convert the illumination beam into an image beam (see the operation of DMD 500 in fig.1), and the illumination beam comprises the light splitting beams (see disclosed by the structure of 200 in fig.1); and a projection lens (see 600 in fig.1), disposed on a transmission path of the image beam and configured to project the image beam out of the projection device (see the operation of fig.1).
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 1, Suga discloses wherein the light splitting module further comprises a second light splitting element (see the second mirror in fig.8, 226) and wherein the second light splitting element (see the second mirror in fig.8) is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element (211) to divide the second beam into a second light splitting beam and third (see the operation of fig.8 and 226) and further discloses in para.[0099] that it will be obvious that the speckle noise contrast can be reduced more effectively via structural blocks disposed over a greater number of stages but does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of fig.8, wherein the light splitting module further comprises the second optical element is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element, and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam, the reflective element is disposed on a transmission path of at least part of the third beam from the second optical element, the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the at least part of the third beam.
Suga discloses in fig.1 discloses a second optical element (see the second optical above in fig.1) is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element (see the third beam above), and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam (see the operation of the second optical above), the reflective element (see the reflector above in fig.1 or 401 in fig.1 or DMD 500 which is also a reflective element) is disposed on a transmission path of at least part of the third beam from the second optical element (see the position of 401), the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the at least part of the third beam (see the operation disclosed in fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Suga with the teaching of Suga so that the light splitting module further comprises a second light splitting element and a second optical element, wherein the second light splitting element is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element to divide the second beam into a second light splitting beam and a third beam; the second optical element is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element, and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam, the reflective element is disposed on a transmission path of at least part of the third beam from the second optical element, the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the at least part of the third beam to reduce speckle.
With respect to claim 3, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 2 but does not disclose explicitly wherein a light intensity difference of each of the light splitting beams is less than 10%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light source module of Suga so that a light intensity difference of each of the light splitting beams is less than 10% , since it would predictably enhance the uniformity of the light splitting beams since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
643
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7-9, Suga discloses the light source module (see 100 and 200 above) according to claim 1, wherein the first light splitting element (see 206 in fig.8), the first optical element (see 211), are sequentially arranged along a first direction (see direction along which elements of distributed in fig.1 above), the first light splitting element (206) is configured to reflect the first light splitting beam and allow the second beam to pass through (see the operation of 206 in fig.8), and discloses wherein the light splitting module further comprises a second light splitting element (226) and the first light splitting element (see 206), the first optical element (see 211), the second light splitting element (226), are sequentially arranged along the first direction (see fig.8), wherein the second light splitting element (see 226) is disposed on the transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element (211) to divide the second beam into a second light splitting beam and a third beam (see the operation of 226); wherein the light splitting beams are transmitted along a second direction (see the direction of the beams that pass through 206 and 226), and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (see the direction along which 206 and 226 are arranged), further discloses in para.[0099] that it will be obvious that the speckle noise contrast can be reduced more effectively via structural blocks disposed over a greater number of stages but discloses the reflective element of the light splitting module, the reflective element is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element and is configured to reflect the second beam, and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam and the second beam, and the second optical element is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element, and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam, the reflective element is disposed on the transmission path of the third beam from the second optical element, and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the third beam.
Suga discloses wherein the first light splitting element (1), the first optical element (see first optical above), and the reflective element of the light splitting module are sequentially arranged along a first direction (reflector in the figure above), the first light splitting element is configured to reflect the first light splitting beam (see 1 and first split above) and allow the second beam to pass through (see the second beam above), the reflective element (see the reflector above) is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element and is configured to reflect the second beam (reflector is configured to partial reflect second beam in the configuration above), and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam (see split beam above) and the second beam (see the second beam ), wherein the light splitting module further comprises a second light splitting element (see 2 above) and a second optical element (see the second above), and the first light splitting element (see 1), the first optical element (see first optical), the second light splitting element (see 2), the second optical element (see second optical above), and the reflective element are sequentially arranged along the first direction (see reflector above), wherein the second light splitting element (see 2) is disposed on the transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element to divide the second beam into a second light splitting beam and a third beam (see second spit beam and third beam above); the second optical element (see second optical) is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element (see the second split), and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam (see the operation of the second split), the reflective element (see reflector above) is disposed on the transmission path of the third beam from the second optical element, and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the third beam (see the first, second and third beam split above), wherein the light splitting beams are transmitted along a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (see the direction of the split light vs the arrangement of components above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Suga with the teaching of Suga so that wherein the first light splitting element, the first optical element, and the reflective element of the light splitting module are sequentially arranged along a first direction, the first light splitting element is configured to reflect the first light splitting beam and allow the second beam to pass through, the reflective element is disposed on a transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element and is configured to reflect the second beam, and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam and the second beam, wherein the light splitting module further comprises a second light splitting element and a second optical element, and the first light splitting element, the first optical element, the second light splitting element, the second optical element, and the reflective element are sequentially arranged along the first direction, wherein the second light splitting element is disposed on the transmission path of the second beam from the first optical element to divide the second beam into a second light splitting beam and a third beam; the second optical element is disposed on a transmission path of the third beam from the second light splitting element, and is configured to change a polarization state of the third beam, the reflective element is disposed on the transmission path of the third beam from the second optical element, and the light splitting beams comprise the first light splitting beam, the second light splitting beam, and the third beam, wherein the light splitting beams are transmitted along a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction to improve image quality by reducing speckle noise.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1) in view of Huang (United States Patent Application Publication 206 in fig.84/0002756 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Suga the light source module according to claim 2, wherein a reflectivity of the first light splitting element (see a reflective of the first light splitting element which comprises 206 has varying reflectivity: para.[0081]: “may be, for instance, 30:70 or 60:40”) but does not explicitly disclose a reflectivity of the second light splitting element are different.
Huang teaches a splitting element with a reflectivity of 50 percent (para.[0005]:” fifty percent of the unpolarized light U.sub.101, represented by the first S-polarized light S.sub.104, is reflected by polarization beam splitter 102 and the other fifty percent of the unpolarized light U.sub.101, represented by the first P-polarized light P.sub.105, passes through the polarization beam splitter 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suga with the teaching of Huang so that reflectivity of the first light splitting element and a reflectivity of the second light splitting element are different to enhance speckle reduction.
With respect to claim 5, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 2, wherein a range of a reflectivity of the first light splitting element is 30% to 40% (see a reflective of the first light splitting element which comprises 206 has varying reflectivity: para.[0081]: “50:50, and it may be, for instance, 30:70 or 60:40”) but does not disclose a range of a reflectivity of the second light splitting element is 45% to 55%.
Huang teaches a reflectivity of a light splitting element is 45% to 55% (para.[0005]:” fifty percent of the unpolarized light U.sub.101, represented by the first S-polarized light S.sub.104, is reflected by polarization beam splitter 102 and the other fifty percent of the unpolarized light U.sub.101, represented by the first P-polarized light P.sub.105, passes through the polarization beam splitter 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suga with the teaching of Huang so that the range of a reflectivity of the first light splitting element is 30% to 40% and a range of a reflectivity of the second light splitting element is 45% to 55% to enhance the speckle reduction.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1) in view of Takahashi (United States Patent Application Publication 206 in fig.83/0286356 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 2, Suga in combination with Suga wherein the second optical element is a half-wave plate (see the half waveplate in fig.8) but does not disclose wherein a quarter-wave plate is the first optical element.
Takahashi discloses wherein a quarter-wave plate ([0053] polarization control device 16 by, for example, set in each sub area A14 to different types of optical devices (with 1/4 wave plate, a half-wave plate as a function of the device)) is a second optical element on the path of a third beam before for a reflector (22 or 21 in fig.1; see para. [0113]: However, in the lighting device, the polarization control device 16 of the position different from the position of the polarization control device in lighting device I. More specifically, the polarization control device 16 arranged in a stage behind the eye lens 14 (closer to the eye lens 14 at DMD21A (will be described later) of one side, between the fly-eye lens 14 and the screen 30) in the light path. In this context, polarization control device 16 disposed on an optical path between the fly-eye lens 14 and the light collecting lens 15.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module of Suga with the teaching of Takahashi so that the first optical element and the second optical element are a quarter-wave plate and a half-wave plate respectively to improve uniformity by reducing speckle.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1) in view of Chikahisa (WO 206 in fig.85140980 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the first optical element is a depolarizer.
Chikahisa discloses wherein a depolarizer (D31 ) between the light beam and the reflector 150 (M21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module of Suga with the teaching of Chikahisa so that the first optical element is a depolarizer to improve homogeneity by reducing speckle.
Claim(s) 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0075588 A1) in view of Takahashi (United States Patent Application Publication 206 in fig.83/0286356 A1) and Yan (CN 112731749 A).
With respect to claim 11, Suga discloses the light source module according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the first optical element is a composite wave plate, and the composite wave plate comprises a half-wave plate area, a three-quarter wave plate area, and a quarter-wave plate area, and a light-transmitting area.
Takahashi discloses wherein the first optical element is a composite wave plate (([0053] polarization control device 16 by, for example, set in each sub area A14 to different types of optical devices (with 1/4 wave plate, a half-wave plate as a function of the device))), and the composite wave plate comprises a half-wave plate area, and a quarter-wave plate area, and a light-transmitting area (([0053] polarization control device 16 by, for example, set in each sub area A14 to different types of optical devices (with 1/4 wave plate, a half-wave plate as a function of the device)) and see fig.13A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module of Suga with the teaching of Takahashi so that the first optical element is a composite wave plate, and the composite wave plate comprises a half-wave plate area, a three-quarter wave plate area, and a quarter-wave plate area, and a light-transmitting area to reduce speckle.
Suga in view of Takahashi does not disclose wherein the composite wave plate comprises a three-quarter waveplate.
Yan discloses wherein the composite waveplate (see fig.3 ) comprises the composite wave plate comprises a half-wave plate area (see 45 degrees), a three-quarter wave plate area (see negative 90 degrees), and a quarter-wave plate area (see 90 degrees), and a light-transmitting area (see zero degrees in fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Suga with the teaching of Takahashi with the teaching Yan so that the composite wave plate comprises a half-wave plate area, a three-quarter wave plate area, and a quarter-wave plate area, and a light-transmitting area to further reduce speckle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that even if the combination of PBS 201 and partial reflecting mirror 206 is considered, such combination still does not disclose the claimed single first light splitting element configured to perform partial reflection and partial transmission of the first beam independent of polarization components.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the limitation does not recite “a single first light splitting element”. Secondly the specification only states “these claims may refer to use “first”, “second”, etc. following with noun or element. Such terms should be understood as a nomenclature and should not be construed as giving the limitation on the number of the elements modified by such nomenclature unless specific number has been given.” Thus, examiner has interpreted “first” as nomenclature since a specific number has not been given in the claims. Therefore, the application of the mirror above discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, since a single first light splitting element configured to perform partial reflection and partial transmission of the first beam independent of polarization components is not required by the claims or the specification.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 PM.
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, 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.
/JERRY L BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights