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) 21-23, 25-27, and 30-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0044525 A1), in view of Pertierra et al. (WO 2019/195182 A1).
Regarding claim 21, 32 and 36, Lee teaches an illumination assembly (200, figure 6) configured to receive a white light input (210, figure 6; paragraph 0038),
A prism (300, figure 6; paragraph 0037) configured to separate the white light input into separate color light inputs (paragraph 0042), redirect the color light inputs to respective modulators (410, 420, 430, 440, figure 6, paragraph 0045), and combine the modulated color light inputs from the respective modulators into a white light output (paragraph 0042, ‘and synthesizes first through fourth light beams…incident from the first through fourth image forming devices…);
And a projection lens assembly configured to project the white light output (500, figure 6), wherein the projection lens assembly further includes a zoom part (paragraph 0037, the projection lens enlarges the image so it must have a zoom part).
Lee does not teach the optical filter configured to spatially Fourier transform the white light output to generate a filtered white light output; the optical filter integrated with the projection lens assembly and the optical filter comprises a Fourier part and an aperture and wherein the zoom part and the Fourier part are assembled in the projection lens assembly such that the Fourier plane of the Fourier part and the Fourier plane of the zoom part are coplanar.
Pertierra teaches the optical filter (404, 412, figure 4) configured to spatially Fourier transform the white light output to generate a filtered white light output (paragraph 0126; ‘modulated light 402 may be white light’); the optical filter integrated with the projection lens assembly (figure 16) and the optical filter comprises a Fourier part (404, figure 4) and an aperture (412, figure 4) and wherein the zoom part and the Fourier part are assembled in the projection lens assembly such that the Fourier plane of the Fourier part and the Fourier plane of the zoom part are coplanar (paragraph 0084, the focal plane of the collimating lens being coplanar with the Fourier Plane 408 makes it such that the Fourier plane of the zoom part will be coplanar with the Fourier Plane of the Fourier part upon integration of the optical filter of Pertierra with the projection system of Lee; “lens 418 may couple filtered light to additional optics located after optical filter 400 (E.g., projector lens 112…)”).
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 Lee to include the filter of Pertierra in order to improve contrast (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 22, 33 and 37, Lee teaches the color light inputs include a red light, a green light and a blue light (paragraph 0029), and wherein the respective modulators include a first modulator configured to modulate the red light (440, figure 6), a second modulator configured to modulate the green light (410, figure 6), and a third modulator configured to modulate the blue light (420, figure 6).
Regarding claim 23, and 34, Lee does not teach the Fourier part includes a lens configured to focus the white light output onto the Fourier plane, wherein the Fourier plane coincides with the focal plane of the lens.
Pertierra teaches the Fourier part includes a lens (404, figure 4) configured to focus the white light output onto the Fourier plane, wherein the Fourier plane coincides with the focal plane of the lens (paragraph 0082).
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 Lee to include the filter of Pertierra in order to improve contrast (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 25 and 35, Lee does not specify the optical filter is configured to block one or more diffraction orders of the white light output.
Pertierra teaches the optical filter is configured to block one or more diffraction orders of the white light output (paragraph 0083).
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 Lee to include the filter of Pertierra in order to improve contrast (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 26 and 38, Lee teaches the prism includes a total internal reflection prism segment configured to separate the white light into the color light inputs (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 27 and 39, Lee teaches each of the color light inputs have the same illumination angle (they are all from the same light source and have the same principle axis shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches a fold mirror (shown in element 200 but not labeled, in between element 240 and 230, figure 6). Configured to direct the white light input to the prism.
Regarding claim 31, Lee teaches each of the respective modulators is a liquid crystal on silicon array (paragraph 0045).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0044525 A1), in view of Pertierra et al. (WO 2019/195182 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (US 2021/0294094 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Pertierra does not specify a wobulator disposed optically between the at least one of the plurality of modulators and the projection lens assembly.
Wakabayashi teaches a wobulator (3, figure 1) disposed optically between the at least one of the plurality of modulators (108B-R, figure 1) and the projection lens assembly (4, figure 1).
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 Lee in view of Pertierra to use the pixel shifting device of Wakabayashi in order to improve apparent resolution (paragraph 0021).
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0044525 A1), in view of Pertierra et al. (WO 2019/195182 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Morant et al. (US 2017/0285453 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Lee in view of Pertierra does not specify a broadband anti-reflection coating is applied to the prism.
Morant teaches a broadband anti-reflection coating is applied to the prism (paragraph 0010).
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 Lee in view of Pertierra to use the AR coating of Morant in order to improve light utilization in the projections system and make the projector brighter.
Regarding claim 29, Lee in view of Pertierra does not specify when a first modulator of the plurality of modulators is in an off state, the respective color light input modulated by the first modulator is directed toward a light dump.
Morant teaches when a first modulator of the plurality of modulators is in an off state, the respective color light input modulated by the first modulator is directed toward a light dump (11, figure 4).
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 Lee in view of Pertierra to use the light dump of Morant in order to monitor the illumination of the projector to make the brightness of the display consistent.
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 3/19/2026