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, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0068393 A1) referred to herein as Viswanathan393, in view of Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0235429 A1), referred to herein as Viswanathan429.
Regarding claim 1 and 16-18, Viswanathan393 teaches a projection surface (128, figure 2);
A light transmitter (162, 164, 264, figure 2) configured to generate a plurality of pixel light beams corresponding to an image and to transmit the plurality of pixel beams on an optical path toward the projections surface (112, figure 2);
A two dimensional scanner (116, figure 2) arranged on the optical path, wherein the 2D scanner is configured to receiver the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter (112, figure 4) and steer the plurality of pixel light beams along the optical path according to a 2D scanning pattern (124, figure 2);
The 2D scanner includes:
A MEMS mirror (paragraph 0016) configured to oscillate about a first axis according to a first oscillation and oscillate about a second axis according to a second oscillation, wherein the first oscillation and the second oscillation form the 2D scanning pattern (paragraph 0017),
A driver configured to sense a first rotational position of the MEMS mirror about the first axis and the second axis (191, paragraph 0019), and
A system controller configured to use information about the first rotational position and the second rotation position of the MEMS mirror to set the transmission time of the light transmitter (176, figure 2);
A photodetector (280, 180, figure 2) configured to determine a portion of the light from the light transmitter that is reflected back from the projections surface and generate a photo signal based on the detected light; and
A controller (176, figure 2) configured to determine based on the photo signal whether an obstacle is located on the optical path (172, 174, figure 2).
Viswanathan393 does not specify a vehicle and in-cabin projection system, wherein the driver is a first MEMS driver and a second MEMS driver.
Viswanathan429 teaches the driver is a first driver (718, figure 7) and a second driver (720, figure 7) for two different axes, and that the projection system is in the cabin of a vehicle and the projection surface is a surface of a vehicle (figure 10).
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 Viswanathan393 to use the dual driver architecture of Viswanathan429 improve feedback control in the display and more precisely synchronize the display components.
Regarding claim 3, Viswanathan393 teaches the 2D scanner is configured to scan the plurality of pixel light beams onto the projection surface according to the 2D scanning pattern (126, figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Viswanathan393 teaches the projection surface is a diffuser screen (figure 2, the projection surface 128 is shown as a front projection surface, which has to be diffusive to some degree in order for a user to see an image).
Regarding claim 6, Viswanathan393 does not specify a pre-scan lens arrange don the optical path between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, wherein the pre scan lens is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter and focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the projection surface.
Viswanathan495 teaches pre-scan lens arrange don the optical path between the light transmitter and the 2D scanner, wherein the pre scan lens is configured to receive the plurality of pixel light beams from the light transmitter and focus the plurality of pixel light beams onto the projection surface (paragraph 0032).
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 Viswanathan393 to use the lens of Viswanathan495 in order to improve picture quality at the projection surface.
Regarding claim 7, Viswanathan393 teaches the light transmitter is configured to emit a monitoring pixel light beam that is outside the visible range of an EM spectrum (IR laser 1, IR laser 2, figure 2) and wherein the photodetector is configured to generate the photo signal based on a portion of the monitoring pixel light beam that is reflected back from the projection surface (280, 180, figure 2).
Regarding claim 8 Viswanathan393 teaches the monitoring pixel light beam is characterized by an optical wavelength in an IR domain (see figure 2, IR laser).
Regarding claim 9, Viswanathan393 teaches the controller is configured to determine from the photo signal a time of flight of the portion of light that is reflected back and detected by the photodetector, and compare the time of flight to a reference time (TOF 170, figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Viswanathan393 teaches the controller is configured to determine from the photo signal a reflectivity map of the portion of light that is reflected back and detected by the photodetector, and compare the reflectivity map to a reference reflectivity map (172, 174, figure 2).
Regarding claim 13 and 20, Viswanathan393 teaches the controller is further configured to determine based on the photo-signal whether the obstacle located on the optical path is a finger (132, 131, figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Viswanathan393 teaches the photodetector and the light transmitter are arranged on a same side of the 2D scanner (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 2, 11-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0068393 A1) referred to herein as Viswanathan393, in view of Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0235429 A1), referred to herein as Viswanathan429 as applied to claims 1 and 18 respectively above, and further in view of Kurozuka et al. (US 2009/0147224 A1).
Regarding claims 2, Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 does not specify the 2D scanner is further configured to receive the portion of light that is reflected back from the projection surface and direct the portion of light to the photodetector.
Kurozuka teaches the 2D scanner is further configured to receive the portion of light that is reflected back from the projection surface and direct the portion of light to the photodetector (paragraph 0093).
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 system of Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 to have the photodetector utilize the same optical path as the projection system as taught in Kurozuka to make the system more compact.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 19, Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 does not specify the controller is further configured to disable/enable a generation of at least some of the plurality of pixel light beams based on an obstacle being present or absent in the optical path.
Kurozuka teaches the controller is further configured to disable/enable a generation of at least some of the plurality of pixel light beams based on an obstacle being present or absent in the optical path (paragraph 0142-0143).
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 Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 to operate the pixels of the display with respect to an object in the optical path such as taught in Kurozuka in order to improve display safety (paragraph 0142).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0068393 A1) referred to herein as Viswanathan393, in view of Viswanathan et al. (US 2017/0235429 A1), referred to herein as Viswanathan429 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Koike et al. (US 2020/0092525 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 does not specify the controller is further configured to control a generation of the plurality of pixel light beams to include projected control elements to the image and to monitor whether the finger is located on the optical path of one of the projected control elements.
Koike teaches the controller is further configured to control a generation of the plurality of pixel light beams to include projected control elements (401, 402, figure 4A) wherein the touch events are correlated to the projected control elements (see figure 4B and figure 6A).
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 Viswanathan393 in view of Viswanathan429 to use the projected control elements of Koike in order to make the projection system easier to use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights