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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneda et al. (US 2013/0258294).
As to claim 1, Kaneda discloses in figure 1, an optical device comprising: a laser light source 11R/11G/11B; a first optical integrator 151 configured to transmit laser light emitted from the laser light source; a second optical integrator 152 configured to transmit the laser light transmitted through the first optical integrator; and a retardation plate disposed between the laser light source and the second optical integrator, and configured to transmit a portion of the laser light so as to rotate a polarization of the transmitted portion of the laser light by 90 degrees (paragraph [0236], half-wave plate rotates polarization by 90 degrees).
As to claim 2, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses wherein the retardation plate transmits one-half of the laser light (half-wave plate transmits one-half of the laser light).
As to claim 3, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, wherein the laser light source is a light emitting device including a plurality of semiconductor laser elements, and the laser light emitted from the light source comprises laser light beam emitted from each of the plurality of semiconductor laser elements (paragraph [0077], laser diodes are semiconductor laser elements).
As to claim 4, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses wherein the laser light beam emitted from each of the plurality of semiconductor laser elements is separately incident on the retardation plate, and the retardation plate transmits one-half of the laser light beam emitted from each of the plurality of semiconductor laser elements (see figure 1 and paragraph [0236]).
As to claim 5, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses wherein the laser light source is a light emitting device including a plurality of semiconductor laser elements, and the laser light emitted from the light source comprises laser light beam emitted from the at least one semiconductor laser element of the plurality of semiconductor laser elements (see figure 1 and paragraph [0236]).
As to claim 6, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 5. Kaneda further discloses wherein the retardation plate is disposed so as to transmit one-half of the laser light emitted from the at least one semiconductor laser element of the plurality of semiconductor laser elements (see figure 1 and paragraph [0236]).
As to claim 7, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, wherein the laser light source emits a plurality of laser light beams having different colors (red, green, blue).
As to claim 8, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 7. Kaneda further discloses wherein the laser light beams of different colors are separately incident on the retardation plate, and the retardation plate transmits one-half of each of the laser light beams of the different colors (see figure 1 and paragraph [0236]).
As to claim 9, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses wherein the retardation plate is disposed in a first region on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical device and no retardation plate is disposed in a second region on the plane, the first and second regions being adjacent to each other with a line passing the optical axis therebetween (see figure 1 and paragraph [0236]).
As to claim 10, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further disclose wherein the retardation plate is disposed between the laser light source and the first optical integrator (paragraph [0236] states that the polarization directions of laser light are aligned with each other with use of a retardation film, implying that the retardation film is disposed at the output of the laser light which is between the laser light source and the first optical integrator).
As to claim 11, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 10. Kaneda further discloses wherein each of the first and second optical integrators 151 and 152 includes one or more fry-eye lenses (see figure 6) and one or more lenses 161/162/17 (see figure 1) following the one or more fry-eye lenses in a light transmitting direction.
As to claim 14, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, an optical combiner 131/132 disposed between the laser light source and the first optical integrator 151, and configured to combine a plurality of laser light beams so as to form combined light, wherein the retardation plate transmits a portion of the combined light of the plurality of laser light beams so as to rotate a polarization of the transmitted portion of the combined light by 90 degrees.
As to claim 15, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 14. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, wherein the plurality of laser light beams emitted from the laser light source have different colors (red, green, blue), and the optical combiner 131/132 includes a mirror group configured to combine the plurality of laser light beams having the different colors.
As to claim 16, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 14. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, wherein the optical combiner includes a beam expander 12R/12G/12B configured to increase a maximum width of the combined light in a direction orthogonal to an optical axis of the optical device.
As to claim 17, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 14. Kaneda further discloses wherein the retardation plate is disposed between the optical combiner and the first optical integrator, and the combined light through the optical combiner is perpendicularly incident on an incident surface of the retardation plate (this is implied by paragraph [0236] as discussed above regarding claim 10).
As to claim 19, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda further discloses in figure 1, a spatial modulator 24 (reflective liquid crystal device) configured to generate an image by modulating spatial intensity distribution of the laser light from the optical device; and a lens 24 (projection lens) configured to project the image generated by the spatial modulator.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2013/0258294).
As to claim 12, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kaneda implies that the retardation plate is disposed between the optical combiner and the first optical integrator (paragraph [0236] as discussed above regarding claim 10) instead of between the first and second optical integrators. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaneda by disposing the retardation plate between the first and second optical integrators because such an arrangement would have worked equally well.
As to claim 13, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 12. Kaneda further discloses wherein each of the first and second optical integrators 151 and 152 includes one or more fry-eye lenses (see figure 6) and one or more lenses 161/162/17 (see figure 1) following the one or more fry-eye lenses in a light transmitting direction.
As to claim 18, Kaneda discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 14. Kaneda implies that the retardation plate is disposed between the optical combiner and the first optical integrator (paragraph [0236] as discussed above regarding claim 10) instead of on a side of the first optical integrator opposite to a side on which the optical combiner is disposed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaneda by disposing the retardation plate on a side of the first optical integrator opposite to a side on which the optical combiner is disposed because such an arrangement would have worked equally well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights