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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "L_x L_y" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. L_x L_y are variables from claim 3 not claim 1. Therefore, for the purpose of examination claim 4 will be interpreted as depending from claim 3.
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) 14-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka (JP 2014-126604).
Regarding claim 14 and 20, Osaka teaches a micro-LED array having a plurality of individually addressable diodes (231, figure 3);
A concentrator array (21, 211, figure 3) overlying an output of the micro-LED array and configured to decrease a numerical aperture of light emitted by the micro-LED array (paragraph 0056 and 0031); and
A non-emissive display panel (306, figure 17) arranged to receive light from the concentrator array.
Regarding claim 15, Osaka teaches the concentrator array comprise a plurality of tapered optical elements (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 17, Osaka teaches the non-emissive display panel comprises a DMD (paragraph 0118).
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) 1-4, 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka (JP 2014-126604), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0213580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Osaka teaches at least one source array (231, figure 3) having a plurality of individually addressable sources in which each source has a size Y_s and an emission cone numerical aperture;
At least one concentrator array (21, 211, figure 3) made of a plurality of individual concentrators overlying the source array in which each individual concentrator comprises:
An input facet size Y_in(p_in, figure 2); and
An output facet size Y_out (p_out, figure 1) wherein the concentrators are configured to condition the output light from the source array from NA_s to a smaller numerical aperture NA_out (paragraph 0056; paragraph 0031);
A non-emissive display (306, figure 17) comprising an array of KxL individually addressable pixels (paragraph 0172), wherein k and l are each at least 500 and a pixel size is selected by desired far field angular resolution and volume constraints of the projector system (paragraph 0172) the non-emissive display having an active area XY;
An illumination optical system (301, figure 17) configured to mage the output facet of the individual concentrators onto the non-emissive display with a magnification factor M; and
Osaka does not teach a projection lens adapted to collimate light from the non-emissive display, the projection lens having a focal length f and a pupil diameter D.
Takeda teaches a projection lens adapted to collimate light from the non-emissive display, the projection lens having a focal length f and a pupil diameter D (paragraph 0087).
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 Osaka to use the collimating projection lens of Takeda in order to make the projection system compatible for use with a waveguide display.
Regarding claim 2, Osaka teaches Y_in is equal to Y_S plus or minus 10% (paragraph 0142, see ‘p’ and ‘p_in’ which are 1mm and 1.1mm, see also paragraph 0024, such that p and p_in can be equal)
Regarding claim 3, Osaka teaches NA_out = NA_s (Y_in/Y_out) (Osaka has a NA_s and a Y_in and Y_out, therefore the NA_out can be defined this way for Osaka as well), and an area of the sum of the mxn individual concentrators output faces is L_xL_y where L_x = mY_out and L_y = nY_out (since the tapered light rods of Osaka abut one another at the output faces this also would have to be the case, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Osaka in view of Takeda discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that M[L_xL_y] = [XY] +/- 10%. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the magnification of the illumination optical system equal to active area of the modulator +/- 10%, 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 display of Osaka in view of Takeda to make the magnification roughly equal to the active area to fill the pixels with light without wasting illumination light.
Regarding claim 8, Osaka teaches the at least one concentrator array is located on a first side of the non-emissive display, and the projection lens is located on a second side of the non-emissive display opposite to the first side (see figure 19).
Regarding claim 12, Osaka teaches the individual concentrator comprises a taper segment having a taper length of at least 5x the input facet size (paragraph 0155, 1 mm vs 10 mm).
Regarding claim 13, Osaka teaches three separate source arrays each having a corresponding concentrator array (see figure 17).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka (JP 2014-126604), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0213580 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woods et al. (US 2023/0236488 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Osaka in view of Takeda does not specify that the individual source of the array comprises at least three sub-sources emitting different colors.
Woods teaches each individual source of the array comprises at least three sub-sources emitting different colors (figure 5A).
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 Osaka in view of Takeda to use the sub-light sources of Woods in order to reduce the size of the image display.
Regarding claim 7, Osaka further teaches the sub-sources comprise mini-LEDs (paragraph 0011).
Osaka in view of Takeda in view of Woods therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that NA_s of at least approximately .8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make NA_s at least approximately 0.8, 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 display of Osaka in view of Takeda in view of Woods to make the NA_s at least 0.8 in order to make the light source cheaper.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka (JP 2014-126604), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2012/0170002 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Osaka does not teach the concentrator array comprises a plurality of compound parabolic collectors.
Ouderkirk teaches the concentrators are compound parabolic collectors (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the concentrators of Osaka into compound parabolic collectors as taught in Ouderkirk in order to make light collection and utilization more efficient in the projector.
Regarding claim 18, Osaka does not teach a polarization beam splitter between an output of the concentrator array and an input of the non-emissive display.
Ouderkirk teaches a polarization beam splitter between an output of the concentrator array and an input of the non-emissive display (paragraph 0048).
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 Osaka to use the PBS of Ouderkirk in order to make the projection system compatible for use with liquid crystal display technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11 and 19 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 5, prior art does not specify that the NA_C is D/2/f and wherein NA_c = NA_s (Y_in/Y_out)/M.
Regarding claim 9, prior art does not teach the projection lens comprises a triple pass PBS and reflective optics.
Regarding claim 10, Prior art does not teach the illumination optical system comprises at least one PBS and one reflective curved mirror.
Regarding claim 11, Prior art does not teach the focus condition of the illumination optical system is configured to defocus and smooth edges of the output light incident on the non-emissive display.
Regarding claim 19, Prior art does not teach a Fresnel lens located proximate to an output of the PBS.
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 9/02/2026
Prosecution Insights