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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “PROJECTOR,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Teijido (US 20040042076 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teijido teaches a projector (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a light source (10) configured to output light containing first laser light (L1B; [0051]) that belongs to a first wavelength band (Blue); a first polarizer (1st 20) configured with a dielectric multilayer film (Fig. 1) and configured to separate a first polarized component (s) of the first laser light (L1B) incident on the first polarizer (1st 20); a first transmissive liquid crystal panel (1st 72) configured to modulate the first polarized component (s) of the first laser light (L1B) separated by the first polarizer (1st 20); and a projection system (30) configured to project the light modulated by the first transmissive liquid crystal panel (1st 72), wherein the first polarizer (1st 20) separates the first polarized component (s) of the first laser light (L1B) to cause the first polarized component (s) to enter the first transmissive liquid crystal panel (1st 72).
Regarding claim 10, Teijido further teaches the first polarizer (1st 20) separates the first polarized component (s) from the first laser light (L1B) by reflecting the first polarized component (s).
Regarding claim 11, Teijido further teaches the first polarizer (1st 20) is disposed so as to incline by an angle of 45 degrees with respect to a chief ray of the first laser light (L1B) incident on the first polarizer (1st 20; Fig. 1).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teijido in view of Kitano (US 20120268917 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Teijido does not explicitly teach a polarization converter 32 configured to convert the light output from the light source (10) into the first polarized component (s).
Kitano teaches a polarization converter (112 and/or 116) configured to convert the light output from the light source (103) into the first polarized component (s).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Teijido with Kitano; because it improves light efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Teijido further teaches the light output from the light source (10) further contains second light (L1G) having a second wavelength band (Green) different from the first wavelength band (Blue) and the first polarizer (1st 20) transmits the second light (L1G) incident thereon to separate the first polarized component (s) of the first laser light (L1B) from the second light (L1G).
Teijido does not teach second light (L1G) output from the light source (10) being fluorescence.
Kitano teaches second light (Green light) output from the light source being fluorescence ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Teijido with Kitnao; because it improves image quality ([0008] of Kitano).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art references Teijido and Kitano do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the light output from the light source further contains second laser light that belongs to a third wavelength band different from the first wavelength band, and the projector further comprises: a light separator configured to separate the first laser light and the second laser light from each other by reflecting the first laser light and transmitting the second laser light; a second polarizer configured with a dielectric multilayer film and configured to reflect the first polarized component of the second laser light incident from the light separator to separate the first polarized component from the second laser light, and a second transmissive liquid crystal panel configured to modulate the first polarized component of the second laser light separated by the second polarizer.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 4 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 5-7 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 4; hence they are also allowable.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art references Teijido and Kitano do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the light output from the light source further contains second laser light that belongs to a fourth wavelength band different from the first wavelength band, and the projector further comprises: a light separator configured to separate the second light and the second laser light from each other by reflecting the second light and transmitting the second laser light; a second polarizer configured with a dielectric multilayer film and configured to reflect the first polarized component of the second laser light incident from the light separator to separate the first polarized component from the second laser light, and a second transmissive liquid crystal panel configured to modulate the first polarized component of the second laser light separated by the second polarizer.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 8 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art references Teijido and Kitano do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the light output from the light source further contains second laser light that belongs to a fourth wavelength band different from the first wavelength band, and the first polarizer includes a first film that is disposed at a first surface of the first polarizer on which the light output from the light source is incident and configured to reflect the first polarized component of the first laser light while transmitting the second laser light, and a second film that is disposed at a second surface of the first polarizer opposite from the first surface and configured to transmit a second polarized component of the first laser light that is polarized in a polarization direction different from the polarization direction of the first polarized component and the second polarized component of the second laser light while reflecting the first polarized component of the second laser light, and the projector further comprises: a light separator configured to separate the first polarized component of the first laser light and the first polarized component of the second laser light from each other by reflecting the first polarized component of the first laser light incident from the first polarizer and transmitting the first polarized component of the second laser light incident from the first polarizer, and a second transmissive liquid crystal panel configured to modulate the second polarized component of the second laser light that passes through the second film of the first polarizer.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 9 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20210373427 A1, US 20140146244 A1, and US 20030147051 A1 disclose various techniques of separating the color components from white light in multiple display panel projection systems.
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