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
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, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano et al. (2024/0210890) in view of Zhao et al. (2023/0324782), further in view of JPH04172436A.
Regarding claim 1, Hatano discloses a projection device (Fig. 1) comprising: a light source module configured to provide an illumination beam and comprising a light source (10), a first Fresnel lens element (21, 22), and a second Fresnel lens element (21, 22), wherein the first Fresnel lens element and the second Fresnel lens element respectively have a first light incident surface and a second light incident surface, a normal of the first light incident surface is parallel to a normal of the second light incident surface, and the first Fresnel lens element is arranged between the light source and the second Fresnel lens element (see Fig. 1); a display panel (13, 130) configured to convert the illumination beam into an image beam, wherein the first Fresnel lens element and the second Fresnel lens element are arranged between the light source and the display panel (note Fig. 1); and a projection lens (3); except
wherein the display panel has a display surface, an angle is present between the first light incident surface and the display surface, and the angle is greater than or equal to 2 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees;
a freeform-surface reflective mirror arranged on a path of the image beam, wherein the display panel is arranged between the light source module and the freeform-surface reflective mirror; and
the projection lens is configured to transmit the image beam from the freeform-surface reflective mirror out of the projection device as claimed.
Zhao, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the freeform-surface mirror (note mirror 18 in Fig. 4). The mirror 18 enables the projector to be configured in a smaller housing by bending the image light by 90 degrees than otherwise (note par. 27).
Therefore, knowing that the housing of the projector in Hatano is large due to the straight projection light path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Zhao into Hatano so that the housing size of the projector could be substantially reduced.
As to the angle is present between the first light incident surface and the display surface, and the angle is greater than or equal to 2 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees as claimed, the examiner takes Official Notice that using small parallel deviation in between the LCD panel 13 and the Fresnel lens 20 to compensate keystone image distortions is well known in the art in the previous office action. Pursuant to the Official Notice requirement, prior art reference JPH04172436A is provided here to show such operation is well known in the art. As shown in Figs. 1 and 4, JPH04172436A adjusts the LCD panel 5 at an angle relative to the lens 2. The adjustment effectively compensates the keystone distortions by selecting a desired angle or angle range so that the selected angle compensates the keystone distortion. Therefore, knowing that keystone distortion is inevitable in Hatano and Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the display panel 13 in the angle range as claimed so that the keystone or any other optical distortion could be corrected.
Regarding claim 2, Hatano discloses that the first Fresnel lens element and the second Fresnel lens element respectively have a first optical axis and a second optical axis, and the first optical axis overlaps with the second optical axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hatano discloses an optical axis of the light source overlaps with the second optical axis (note Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hatano and Zhao together meets the limitation as claimed: the image beam is directly irradiated to the freeform-surface reflective mirror after exiting the display panel.
Regarding claim 6, Hatano discloses the light source module further comprises a condensing element (11) arranged between the first Fresnel lens element and the light source.
Regarding claim 7, Hatano discloses that a focal length of the first Fresnel lens element is less than a focal length of the second Fresnel lens element (note par. 40).
Regarding claim 8, Hatano discloses that the light source module further comprises a polarizing element (12) arranged between the second Fresnel lens element and the display panel, wherein the polarizing element is parallel to the second Fresnel lens element (note Fig. 1).
In addition, Zhao teaches that the polarizing element is arranged between the first Fresnel lens element and the second Fresnel lens element (note polaroid 14 in Fig. 4). The polaroid 14 filters out unwanted P lights (note par. 27), which enhances the clarity of the projected image. Therefore, in view of Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatano so that the polarizing element could be placed as taught by Zhao.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao inherently discloses that the polaroid 14 comprises a reflective polarizer and a linear polarizer (note par. 27).
Regarding claim 10, Hatano discloses that orthogonal projection areas of the first Fresnel lens element and the second Fresnel lens element onto the display panel are the same as each other (note Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Hatano and Zhao, either taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the feature "the display panel has a display surface, an angle is present between the first light incident surface and the display surface, and the angle is greater than or equal to 2 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees" as claimed, the examiner disagrees. As stated in the previous office rejection, the claimed feature is well known in the art as disclosed by the prior art reference JPH04172436A. In the prior art reference, the keystone distortions is corrected or compensated by tilting the LCD panel 5 at an angle relative to the lens 2. The angle selected can be in any value as long it compensates the keystone distortion properly. This method is simple and effective comparing to other complicated electronic transformation methods. Therefore, the combination of Hatano, Zhao, and JPH04173426A still meets the claimed invention.
In view of foregoing arguments, it is clear that the applicant fails to overcome the 103 rejection. As a result, the rejection is maintained.
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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights