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 .
Status
The filing on 08/20/2026 amended claims 1, 2, 11, 18 and cancelled claims 6 and 13. Claims 1-5,7-12 and 14-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 11 and 18.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng ‘389 (US 20200371389 A1) in view of Eash (US 20220004003 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geng ‘389 an illumination module (Fig. 1-11B) comprising: a LCoS panel (406; [0079]); a plurality of light sources (502) configured to generate illuminating light; and a lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) optically coupled via coupling optics (504, 616, 636; [0093], [0112]) to the plurality of light sources (502) and adapted to direct the illuminating light to the LCoS panel (406), wherein the lightguide includes: an array of polarization selective elements (624) positioned within the lightguide and configured to direct a first portion of the illuminating light external to the lightguide and a reflective element (626) configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the array of polarization selective elements (624; [0084], [0102], [0110]-[0114], [0116]-[0121], [0132]-[0135], [0140]-[0146], [0151]-[0154], [0159]-[0169], [0173]-[0175], [0180], [0192], [0195], [0203], [0214]).
Geng ‘389 does not teach the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array.
Eash teaches the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array (fleck mirrors) positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array (Fig. 4 and 5; [0049], [0055]-[0057], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine Geng ‘389 with Eash; because it is suggested by Geng ‘389 ([0125]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Geng ‘389 and Eash consequently results in the first micromirror being positioned at a first location in the micromirror array that is closer to a center of the micromirror array than a second location in the micromirror array at which the second micromirror is positioned (Fig. 4 and 5 of Eash); the lightguide is configured to transmit light of a first polarization state and reflect light of a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state ([0084], [0102], [0110]-[0114], [0116]-[0121], [0132]-[0135], [0140]-[0146], [0151]-[0154], [0159]-[0169], [0173]-[0175], [0180], [0192], [0195], [0203], [0214] of Geng ‘389); and coupling optics (504, 616, 636) comprise an optical concentrator ([0093] of Geng ‘389).
Regarding claim 3, Geng ‘389 further teaches the coupling optics (504, 616, 636) comprise a tapered cross-sectional shape ([0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Geng ‘389 further teaches the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) comprises a polarization beam splitter (404, 604, 624, 644, 804; [0084], [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Geng ‘389 further teaches an illumination module (Fig. 1-11B) comprising: a light source (502) configured to generate illuminating light; a lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) optically coupled to the light source (502) wherein the lightguide includes: an array of polarization selective elements (624) positioned within the lightguide and configured to direct a first portion of the illuminating light external to the lightguide and a reflective element (626) configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the array of polarization selective elements (624; [0084], [0102], [0110]-[0114], [0116]-[0121], [0132]-[0135], [0140]-[0146], [0151]-[0154], [0159]-[0169], [0173]-[0175], [0180], [0192], [0195], [0203], [0214]); a LCoS panel (406) located proximate to a first side of the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100), the LCoS panel (406) configured to generate projection light from the illuminating light; and projection optics (508) located proximate to a second side of the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) opposite to the first side, wherein the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) is adapted to direct the illuminating light to the LCoS panel (406) and direct the projection light to the projection optics (508).
Geng ‘389 does not teach the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array.
Eash teaches the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array (fleck mirrors) positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array (Fig. 4 and 5; [0049], [0055]-[0057], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine Geng ‘389 with Eash; because it is suggested by Geng ‘389 ([0125]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Geng ‘389 further teaches the plurality of light sources (502) comprise a microLED array ([0092]).
Regarding claim 18, Geng ‘389 further teaches an illumination module (Fig. 1-11B) comprising: a light source (502) configured to generate illuminating light; a polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) optically coupled via coupling optics (504, 616, 636) to the light source (502); wherein the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) includes: an array of polarization selective elements (624) positioned within the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) and configured to direct a first portion of the illuminating light external to the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) and a reflective element (626) configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the array of polarization selective elements (624; [0084], [0102], [0110]-[0114], [0116]-[0121], [0132]-[0135], [0140]-[0146], [0151]-[0154], [0159]-[0169], [0173]-[0175], [0180], [0192], [0195], [0203], [0214]); a LCoS panel (406) located proximate to a first side of the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802), the LCoS panel (406) configured to generate projection light from the illuminating light; and projection optics (508) located proximate to a second side of the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) opposite to the first side, wherein the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) is adapted to direct the illuminating light to LCoS panel (406) and direct the projection light to the projection optics (508).
Geng ‘389 does not teach the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array.
Eash teaches the array of polarization selective elements comprises: a micromirror array (fleck mirrors) positioned within the lightguide where a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array (Fig. 4 and 5; [0049], [0055]-[0057], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine Geng ‘389 with Eash; because it is suggested by Geng ‘389 ([0125]).
Regarding claim 19, Geng ‘389 further teaches the polarization beam splitter (400, 602, 622, 642, 802) comprises a reflective polarizer ([0079]).
Regarding claim 20, Geng ‘389 further teaches the coupling optics (504) comprises a polarizer (506; [0094]).
Claims 5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng ‘389 and Eash and in further view of McGuire (US 20070177275 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Geng ‘389 further teaches the plurality of light sources (502) comprise a first microLED array disposed proximate to a first side of the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100); but neither Geng ‘389 and Eash teaches a second microLED array disposed proximate to a second side of the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100).
McGuire teaches a first microLED array (first 57) disposed proximate to a first side of the lightguide (42) and a second microLED array (second 57; Fig. 4) disposed proximate to a second side of the lightguide (42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Geng ‘389 and Eash with McGuire; because it allows increase in brightness of illumination.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Geng ‘389 further teaches a diffuser ([0179]) disposed between the light source (502) and the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100).
Neither Geng ‘389 nor Eash explicitly teaches the diffuser being a spatially variable diffuser or the diffuser disposed between the coupling optics (504, 616, 636) and the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100).
McGuire teaches a spatially variable diffuser (240; Fig. 42, [0175]) disposed between the light source (204) or coupling optics (232, 238) and the lightguide (202; Fig. 10, 42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Geng ‘389 and Eash with McGuire; because it allows improving light distribution uniformity.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng ‘389 and Eash in further view of Yokote (US 20060232750 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, neither Geng ‘389 nor Eash explicitly teaches a polarization recycling assembly disposed between the coupling optics (504, 616, 636) or the light source (502) and the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100).
Yokote teaches a polarization recycling assembly (14) disposed between the coupling optics (13) or the light source (11) and the lightguide (15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Geng ‘389 and Eash with Yokote; because it improves light efficiency and prevent light loss.
Claims 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng ‘389 and Eash in further view of Geng ‘282 (US 20200371282 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, neither Geng ‘389 nor Eash explicitly teaches a polarization-selective diffuser disposed between the lightguide (400, 602, 622, 642, 802, 1000, 1100) and the LCoS panel (406).
Geng ‘282 teaches a polarization-selective diffuser (432) disposed between the lightguide (420) and the LCoS panel (498; [0068]-[0071], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Geng ‘389 and Eash with Geng ‘282; because it improves illumination light uniformity.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Geng ‘389, Eash and Geng ‘282 consequently results in the polarization-selective diffuser comprises a metasurface ([0071], [0100] of Geng ‘282).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
Geng is silent, however, with respect to "a lightguide" that is "optically coupled via coupling optics to the plurality of light sources" and which "includes a micromirror array positioned within the lightguide and configured to direct a first portion of the illuminating light external to the lightguide, a first micromirror of the micromirror array having a first dimension that is less than a second dimension of a second micromirror of the micromirror array, and a reflective element configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the micromirror array," as recited in claim 1. Eash fails to remedy Geng's deficiencies. Eash relates to "an illumination waveguide directing light to a spatial light modulator." Eash, paragraph 2. Further, Eash describes "a reflective element for in-coupling, out-coupling, or expansion of the light inside the waveguide," where the reflective element may include "a set of fleck mirrors embedded at an angle in the waveguide to reflect portions of the light." Id., paragraphs 3 and 23. Eash also describes that "the waveguide includes an in-coupler and a reflective out-coupler...' and that the "reflective out- coupler reflects the light initially to the spatial light modulator... Id., paragraph 34. Although Eash describes fleck mirrors used for in-coupling, out-coupling, or expansion, Eash does not disclose the claimed arrangement in which the lightguide includes both "a micromirror array positioned within the lightguide and configured to direct a first portion of the illuminating light external to the lightguide" and "a reflective element configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the micromirror array." Rather, Eash describes reflective structures that redirect light toward the spatial light modulator. For example, Eash states that the mirrors are "oriented to receive the light that traveled down the waveguide, to redirect them to the spatial light modulator 880." Id., paragraph 63. Eash therefore does not disclose "a reflective element configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the micromirror array," as required by claim 1. (Remarks; p. 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Geng ‘389 explicitly teaches a reflective element (626) configured to receive a second portion of the illuminating light and direct the second portion towards the array of polarization selective elements (624).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights