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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lens" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes that this limitation may refer to the lens group and for the purpose of examination this will be the interpretation given to this element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 6,801,362 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a projection system (figure 1) comprising a light source assembly (12, 14, 22, 16, 18, 24, 28, figure 1), an imaging assembly (30, figure 1), and a reflective component (46a-c, figure 2); wherein
The imaging assembly comprises a first lens (32, figure 1) located near an exit pupil (P, figure 1; P is both the entrance and exit pupil) of the imaging assembly, the first lens has a first part (part that receives light from 28, figure 1) and a second part (part adjacent to the right of 28, figure 1), the first part and the second part being separated by an optical axis (see annotated figure 1 below); and
The light source assembly is configured to emit rays including at least a chief emitted ray incident through the first part of the first lens (column 3 lines 37-54) and then reflected by the reflective component to form reflection rays, including at least a chief ray emergent through the second part of the first lens (column 4 lines 8-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches the chief ray is transmitted through the first part of the first lens to the reflective component to form a lighting optical path; the chief reflection ray is transmitted through the reflective component to the second part of the first lens to form an imaging optical path, and the lighting optical path and the imaging optical path are arrange non-coaxially (see figure 1, wherein the light enters through the left side of lens 32 and exits through the right side of 32).
Regarding claim 6, Brown teaches the imaging assembly comprises a lens group arranged along the optical axis, and the lens [group] comprises the first lens (see 30, 32, figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Brown teaches a projection system (figure 1).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,801,362 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches the projection system comprising a lighting system and an imaging system; the light source assembly and the imaging assembly constitute the lighting system (see from 28 to 46, figure 1) and the reflective component and the imaging assembly constitute the imaging system (see from 46 to P, figure 1).
Brown teaches the claimed invention except for specifying the F/# of the lighting system is .45 to .55 times that of the projection system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the F/# of the lighting system to be .45 to .55 times that of the projection system, 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 a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Brown to make the F/# of the lighting system smaller than the projection system in order to improve light utilization in the projection system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,801,362 B1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0259224 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Brown does not teach a light source group and a light combining group such that rays emitted from the light source group are transmitted to the light combining group and then transmitted by the light combining group to the first part of the first lens.
Lee teaches a light source group (110B, 110G, 110R figure 1, 10, figure 6) and a light combining group, 30, figure 5, 120, figure 1) such that rays emitted from the light source group are transmitted to the light combining group and then transmitted by the light combining group to subsequent optical components (see from 120 to 130 etc.). Upon modification to use multiple light sources to be combined, the combiner would be placed anterior to the first part of the first lens in Brown in order to couple all wavelengths into the image system.
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 Brown to use the multiple light sources of Lee in order to make improve the color rendering in the projection system.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,801,362 B1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0259224 A1), as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2008/0239253 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Lee does not teach the light combining group comprises a compound parabolic concentrator or a TIR lens and a waveguide wherein the light waveguide is located one a light emergent side of the compound parabolic concentrator or the light emergent side of the total internal reflection lens.
Liu teaches a TIR lens (144, figure 1) and a light waveguide combination (160, figure 1), wherein the light waveguide is located on a light emergent side of the TIR lens.
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 Brown in view of Lee to use the TIR lens of Liu in order to more efficiently collect the illumination light.
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches three concentrators arranged in different horizontal planes, and the light waveguides corresponding respectively with the three concentrators have unequal lengths (110R, 110G and 110B are arranged in the same plane and there are different lengths for each respective waveguide).
Lee does not teach the three concentrators are compound parabolic concentrators or TIR lenses.
Liu teaches a TIR lens (144, figure 1) and a light waveguide combination (160, figure 1), wherein the light waveguide is located on a light emergent side of the TIR lens.
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 Brown in view of Lee to use the TIR lens of Liu in order to more efficiently collect the illumination light.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the light combining group comprises three concentrators arranged in the same horizontal plane (see figure 7) and light waveguides corresponding respectively with the TIR lenses have equal lengths (see 102, figure 7).
Lee does not teach the three concentrators are compound parabolic concentrators or TIR lenses.
Liu teaches a TIR lens (144, figure 1) and a light waveguide combination (160, figure 1), wherein the light waveguide is located on a light emergent side of the TIR lens.
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 Brown in view of Lee to use the TIR lens of Liu in order to more efficiently collect the illumination light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are 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 4, closest prior art (Brown) does not specify that the first part and the second part of the first lens have unequal curvature radii.
Regarding claim 5, closest prior art (Brown) teaches the chief emitted ray is transmitted through the first part of the first lens to the reflective component to form a lighting optical path, and the chief reflection ray is transmitted through the reflective component to the second part of the first lens to form an imaging optical path (see figure 1). Brown does not teach the lighting optical path has a shorter optical path length than that of the imaging optical path and that the first part of the first lens has a smaller curvature radius than the second part of the first lens.
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 6/05/2026
Prosecution Insights