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, 2, 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano (JP 2017173557) in view of Koike (JP 202111089 4 A).
With respect to claim 1 and 2, Hatano discloses an image projection device (fig.4) configured to project radiation light including an image to a reflection-transmission unit (66 in fig.4) comprising: an image radiation unit (see 11 and 13 in fig.4) configured to radiate the radiation light an image; an angle-dependent light transmission unit (28 in fig.4) of which transmittance is dependent on polarization (see para. 29: [re: 28] a glass with a polarizing plate having the above function can be expected to have the same effect. .) and a concave mirror (see 16 in fig.4) that the radiation light transmitted through the angle-dependent light gap (see the gap in fig.4) reaches, and that reflects the radiation light toward a reflection-transmission unit (see 66 in fig.4), but an angle-dependent light transmission unit of which transmittance of light in a predetermined polarization plane changes depending on an incidence angle and the angle-dependent light transmission unit is held while being bent in at least one axis direction, further comprising: an angle changing unit configured to change an angle of the angle-dependent light transmission unit relative to the optical path.
Koike discloses an image projection device (see fig.2) comprising: an image radiation unit (see fig.2, 10 and 11) that configured to radiates an image; a reflection-transmission unit (see 3 in fig.1) configured to reflects radiation light from the image radiation unit at a front surface (see the front surface of 3) and transmits light from a back surface (see the light from the outside in fig.1); and an angle-dependent light transmission unit (comprises: either 70 or comprised by 50, 60 and 70 in fig.2) of which transmittance of light in a predetermined polarization plane (see the P light) changes depending on an incidence angle (see [0034]: (Regarding the action of the louver 70) The louver 70 maximizes the transmittance of light rays incident at a specific angle (hereinafter referred to as the maximum light rays), and increases the transmittance of light rays incident at an angle with respect to the maximum light rays. Lower than the maximum ray.), wherein the angle-dependent light transmission unit (comprises: either 70 or comprised by 50, 60 and 70 in fig.2) is disposed in an optical path of the radiation light from the image radiation unit (see 2, 10 and 11) to the reflection-transmission unit (3), further comprising an angle changing unit (80) configured to changes an angle of the angle-dependent light transmission unit relative to the optical path ([0024]: The position adjusting mechanism 80 shown in FIG. 3 is a mechanism for adjusting the position of the concave mirror 30), wherein the angle-dependent light transmission unit (comprises: 50, 60 and 70 in fig.2) is held while being bent in at least one axis direction (see the bend in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hatano with the teaching of Koike to utilize an angle-dependent light transmission unit of which transmittance of light in a predetermined polarization plane changes depending on an incidence angle and the angle-dependent light transmission unit is held while being bent in at least one axis direction and an angle changing unit configured to change an angle of the angle-dependent light transmission unit relative to the optical path to protect the display unit from external and stray light unnecessary for display and to improve user friendliness.
With respect to claim 4, Hatano in view of Koike discloses the image projection device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a radius of curvature of the angle-dependent light transmission unit is within a range of 10 mm to 1000 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify a radius of curvature of the angle-dependent light transmission unit of Hatano in view of Koike so that the radius of curvature is within a range of 10 mm to 1000 mm, since it would predictably facilitate the reduction of stray light and 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.
With respect to claim 5, Hatano in view of Koike discloses the image projection device according to claim 1, Hatano in combination with Koike further comprising a polarized light selection unit (see 60 of Koike in fig.2) configured to transmits polarized light in a transmission axis direction and blocks polarized light orthogonal to the transmission axis direction (see the operation of fig.60), wherein the polarized light selection unit (60) is disposed in the optical path from the angle-dependent light transmission unit (70) to the reflection-transmission unit (see 3 in fig.1).
With respect to claim 6, Hatano in view of Koike discloses the image projection device according to claim 5, Hatano in combination with Koike discloses wherein the transmission axis direction of the polarized light selection unit corresponds to the predetermined polarization plane (see the operation and P light in fig.2 of Koike ).
With respect to claim 9, Hatano in view of Koike discloses the image projection device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a radius of curvature of the angle-dependent light transmission unit has a saturation of 20 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify a radius of curvature of the angle-dependent light transmission unit of Hatano in view of Koike so that wherein a radius of curvature of the angle-dependent light transmission unit has a saturation of 20 or less, since it would predictably maintain image quality, while protecting electronic components and 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano (JP 2017173557) in view of Koike (JP 2021110894 A) and Kasahara (WO 2017130763 A1)
With respect to claims 7, Hatano in view of Koike discloses the image projection device according to claim 1, Hatano does not further comprise: an intermediate image formation optical unit that is disposed in the optical path from the image radiation unit to the reflection-transmission unit and configured to form an image of light from the image radiation unit at an intermediate image formation position.
Kasahara discloses further comprising an intermediate image formation optical unit (13 in fig.9 in Kasahara) that is disposed in the optical path from the image radiation unit (11 in Kasahara) to the reflection-transmission unit (2 in figs, 1 or 5 in Kasahara) and configured to forms an image of light from the image radiation unit at an intermediate image formation position (see M1 in Kasahara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hatano in view of Koike with the teaching of Kasahara so that an intermediate image formation optical unit that is disposed in the optical path from the image radiation unit to the reflection-transmission unit and configured to form an image of light from the image radiation unit at an intermediate image formation position to facilitate image aberration correction and magnification.
With respect to claim 8, Hatano in view of Koike and Kasahara discloses the projection device according to claim 7, but does not explicitly wherein the angle-dependent light transmission unit is disposed in the optical path of the radiation light, at a position closer to the reflection-transmission unit than the intermediate image formation position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of components of Hatano in view of Koike and Kasahara so that the angle-dependent light transmission unit is disposed in the optical path of the radiation light, at a position closer to the reflection-transmission unit than the intermediate image formation position, since it would predictably reduce stray light and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-9 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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