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) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehata et al. (JP 2015/087596 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Ogura (US 2016/0062222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 11 and 12, Maehata teaches a light source (27A, 27B, figure 5);
A spatial light modulator (31, figure 5)that includes a modulation part that is irradiated with light emitted from the light source and that modulates a phase of the light with which the modulation part is irradiated (paragraph 0045);
A controller (paragraph 0064 described the automatic control of the projection system which would require some kind of controller) configured to execute instructions to
Allocate at least two modulation regions (M1, M2, figure 5) to the modulation part of the spatial light modulator,
Set phase images of at least two images constituting a target image on a face to be projected (the ‘face to be projected’ appears to be a composite image formed from two constituent sub-images that are combined and stripped of other orders of diffraction light other than the first order, see paragraph 0046 of the USPGPUB of this application) in the at least two respective modulation regions (paragraph 0057), and
Control the light source in such a way that the modulation part in which the phase images of the at least two images are set is irradiated with light (paragraph 0047), and
A shield (41, 42, 43, figure 4) that is disposed on an optical path of modulated light modulated by the modulation part of the spatial light modulator (see position of 31, figure 4 which is anterior to all of 41-43 in the direction of the light travel) and that is configured to transmit a light component in an image region where a desired image is formed as projection light and shield a light component in an unnecessary region including a ghost image of the desired image of the modulated light modulated in each of the at least two modulation regions set in the modulation part of the spatial light modulator (paragraph 0058-0060).
Maehata does not specify the controller comprises a memory and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored on the memory.
Ogura teaches a memory and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored on the memory (paragraph 0047).
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 Maehata to use the memory/processor architecture of Ogura in order to make the projector control system more efficient.
Regarding claim 2, Maehata teaches the shield is disposed at a position at which 0th order light included in the modulated light modulated in the at least two modulation regions is shielded (paragraph 0060, only 1st order light is not shielded).
Regarding claim 3, Maehata teaches allocate a first modulation region and a second modulation region (M1 and M2) to the modulation part of the spatial light modulator, and
Set phase images of a first image and a second image constituting the target image in the first modulation region and the second modulation region respectively (paragraph 0047), and wherein
The shield is disposed at a position at which a light component of the unnecessary region included in the modulated light modulated in each of the first modulation region and the second modulation region is shielded (paragraph 0060).
Maehata does not specify the controller comprises a memory and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored on the memory.
Ogura teaches a memory and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored on the memory (paragraph 0047).
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 Maehata to use the memory/processor architecture of Ogura in order to make the projector control system more efficient.
Regarding claim 4-7, Maehata teaches the shield includes a first shield and a second shield disposed at respective positions at which a light component of the unnecessary region included in the modulated light modulated in the first and second modulation region is shielded (paragraph 0060). Maehata further teaches a left and right region or upper and lower region for the modulation part (M1 and M2, the claimed upper and lower and left and right are not specified relative to anything else in the claim and therefore, Maehata can be said to teach both of the arrangements).
Therefore Maehata in view Ogura teach the claimed invention except for specifying that the phase image of the left side and right sides or upper and lower sides of the modulation region correspond to the left and right half or upper and lower halves of the target image, in the various combination of these elements. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display system of Maehata in view of Ogura so that the phase image of the left side and right sides or upper and lower sides of the modulation region correspond to the left and right half or upper and lower halves of the target image in any combination , 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 system of Maehata in view of Ogura to set the correspondence between the phase images and the target image as claimed in order to optimize image quality.
Regarding claim 8, Maehata teaches a curve surface mirror (55, figure 4) that includes a curved reflecting surface irradiated with the modulated light modulated by the modulation part of the spatial light modulator, is disposed on an optical path of a light component of the image region forming the desired image, the light component having passed through the shield (43, figure 4), of the modulated light modulated by the modulation part of the spatial light modulator, reflects the light component of the image region by the reflecting surface, and projects the projection image light having a projection angle enlarged according to a curvature of the reflecting surface (see B8, figure 4; paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 10 Maehata teaches at least two light sources (paragraph 0030).
Maehata in view of Ogura therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the emission angle of light emitted from each of the at least two light sources is set in such a way that regions to be trimmed included in the target image overlap with each other. 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 Maehata in view of Ogura to make the emission angle of light emitted from each of the at least two light sources set in such a way that regions to be trimmed included in the target image overlap with each other, 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 (the overlapping region), 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 one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Maehata in view of Ogura to make the emission angle of light emitted from each of the at least two light sources be set in such a way that regions to be trimmed included in the target image overlap with each other, in order to more effectively eliminate stray light form entering the image and improving image quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, closest prior art is Fujio et al. (WO 2019/116526 A1) which does teach the combination of a phase image of the first image constituting the target image and a virtual lens condensing the modulated light, the idea of which could be extended to two modulation regions, however it is not properly combinable with Maehata because Maehata does not teach forming a first or second image at a position of the reflecting surface of the curved mirror surface. In fact Maehata works by diverging the light before it reaches the curved reflecting surface so it would not form an image at that surface. See paragraph 0107 of the PGPUB of this application for information on this limitation.
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, 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 1/24/2026