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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173).
Regarding claim 1, D’oosterlinck discloses an image projection apparatus (Figure 1), comprising:
a light source to emit light ([0101] discloses: 12, light source apparatus, generates a beam of light);
an image display element ([0101] discloses: 14, light modulator) to modulate the light emitted from the light source to form an image with the modulated light ([0008] discloses: light modulator used to control projected image); and
a projection optical system ([0101] discloses: 16, projection lens assembly) to project the image formed by the image display element (Figure 1 depicts: 16, projector lens assembly, projecting, to 20, display surface, from 14, light modulator; Examiner notes that this is considered to be projecting the image from the light modulator).
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus wherein both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C, where A denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less, B denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of less than 510 nm, and C denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of greater than 610 nm. D’oosterlinck and Bietry are related because both disclose projection systems.
Bietry teaches an apparatus wherein
both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C ([0042] teaches: green laser light, from light source and projected light, with peak wavelength of 532 nm having only 0.05-1 nm bandwidth; thus giving a spectral spike at 532 ± 1 nm bandwidth; such that A>B and A>C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Bietry and provide an apparatus wherein both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C. Doing so would allow for concentrating the emitted optical energy within the green wavelength region of greatest visual sensitivity, thereby improving the perceived brightness and visibility of the projected image.
Regarding claim 2, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light source emits the light which satisfies A>B+C (Bietry: [0042] teaches: green laser light with peak wavelength of 532 nm having only 0.05-1 nm bandwidth; thus, substantially all emitted radiation energy is concentrated within the claimed 510-610 nm range A, at 532 ± 1 nm, while the radiation energy below 510 nm and above 610 nm is negligible, such that A>B+C; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 3, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light source emits light that satisfies at least one of A≥2B and A≥2C (Bietry: Figure 2 depicts: intensity of light source emitted from 531 nm-532 nm, is at least 2X the intensity of light outside of the bandwidth; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitted from the light source is a wavelength within a wavelength range of 428 nm or more and 688 nm or less (Bietry: [0042] teaches: green laser light with peak wavelength of 532 nm having only 0.05-1 nm bandwidth; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 7, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light source has a solid-state light source ([0184] discloses: solid state illumination).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ogawa (US 2019/0025683).
Regarding claim 5, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror, and the mirror has a higher reflectance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm. D’oosterlinck and Ogawa are related because both disclose projection systems.
Ogawa teaches an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror ([0058] teaches: 141, dichroic mirror), and
the mirror has a higher reflectance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm ([0058] teaches: 141, dichroic mirror, is such that light in a wavelength range up to about 510 nm is transmitted and light in a range of about 510 nm-610 nm is reflected; thus the mirror has a higher reflectance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Ogawa and provide an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror, and the mirror has a higher reflectance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm. Doing so would allow for selectively reflecting the desired green wavelength band while transmitting wavelengths outside the desired band, thereby improving wavelength separation and optical efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror, and the mirror has a higher transmittance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm. D’oosterlinck and Ogawa are related because both disclose projection systems.
Ogawa teaches an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror ([0058] teaches: 141, dichroic mirror), and
the mirror has a higher transmittance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm ([0058] teaches: 141, dichroic mirror, is such that light in a wavelength range of about 610 nm or longer is transmitted and light in a range of about 510 nm-610 nm is reflected; thus the mirror has a higher transmittance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Ogawa and provide an apparatus wherein at least one of the projection optical system or the light source includes a mirror, and the mirror has a higher transmittance for the light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less than for light having a wavelength of 450 nm or 650 nm. Doing so would allow for selectively reflecting the desired green wavelength band while transmitting wavelengths outside the desired band, thereby improving wavelength separation and optical efficiency.
Claims 8-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishimori et al. (US 9,442,352).
Regarding claim 8, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the light source includes: an excitation light source to emit first light having a first wavelength; and a wavelength converter to: receive the first light emitted from the excitation light source; and emit a second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength. D’oosterlinck and Nishimori are related because both disclose projection systems.
Nishimori teaches disclose an apparatus wherein the light source includes:
an excitation light source to emit first light having a first wavelength; and
a wavelength converter to:
receive the first light emitted from the excitation light source; and
emit a second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Claim 1 teaches: light source device comprising, light emitted in a first wavelength from a first unit, a wavelength conversion member, configured to receive the emitted light from first unit and emit light having a second wavelength range that is different from the first wavelength range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Nishimori and provide an apparatus wherein the light source includes: an excitation light source to emit first light having a first wavelength; and a wavelength converter to: receive the first light emitted from the excitation light source; and emit a second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength. Doing so would allow for generating light of a desired wavelength from a solid-state excitation source, thereby providing an efficient and compact light source for the projection apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising:
a cooler to cool the excitation light source (Nishimori : Col. 5, lines 6-15 teach: 21, heat sink, as a light emitting element heat dissipation member for dissipating heat generated by the laser diodes; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 8, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 10, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising: another cooler to cool the wavelength converter (Nishimori: Col. 6, lines 27-39 teaches: 22, heat sink, installed on the rear surface of 23, fixed phosphor to dissipate heat and exhausted to air, considered the surface of the wavelength converter), wherein
the wavelength converter includes a static phosphor unit that is not rotationally driven (Nishimori: Col. 6, lines 27-39 teaches: fixed phosphor, considered a static phosphor unit that is not rotationally drive; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 8, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 11, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the wavelength converter includes a static phosphor unit that is not rotationally driven (Nishimori: Col. 6, lines 27-39 teaches: fixed phosphor, considered a static phosphor unit that is not rotationally drive; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 8, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 12, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the wavelength converter includes a phosphor wheel that rotates (Nishimori: Col. 7, lines 9-17 teaches: an embodiment with a phosphor wheel that is driving to rotate; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 8, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yajima et al. (US 2015/0268473).
Regarding claim 13, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus with a head-mounted display, comprising: a guide plate. D’oosterlinck and Yajima are related because both disclose display devices.
Yajima teaches an apparatus with a head-mounted display (Figure 1 depicts: head mounted display), comprising: a guide plate ([0052] teaches: display unit includes guide plates).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Yajima and provide an apparatus with a head-mounted display, comprising: a guide plate. Doing so would allow for guiding high visibility projected image to the eye of a wearer in a head mounted configuration, thereby providing a compact display having improved perceived brightness and visibility.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173) in view of Yajima et al. (US 2015/0268473), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Mochida (US 2024/0019689).
Regarding claim 14, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the head-mounted display according to claim 13.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus further comprising: processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light emitted from the light source. D’oosterlinck and Mochida are related because both disclose projection apparatus.
Mochida teaches an apparatus further comprising:
processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light emitted from the light source ([0185] teaches: 11, control device, to set a predetermined amount of laser emission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Mochida and provide an apparatus further comprising: processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light emitted from the light source. Doing so would allow for electronically controlling the amount of light emitted by the light source, thereby providing a desired image brightness to the wearer.
Regarding claim 15, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the head-mounted display according to claim 13.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus further comprising: a reflecting surface; and processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light by controlling movement of the reflecting surface. D’oosterlinck and Mochida are related because both disclose projection apparatus.
Mochida teaches an apparatus further comprising:
a reflecting surface ([0050] teaches: 13, movable device, has a reflector); and
processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light by controlling movement of the reflecting surface ([0185] teaches: 11, control device, to set a predetermined amount of laser emission; [0100] teaches: changes in brightness due to speed of reflector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Mochida and provide an apparatus further comprising: a reflecting surface; and processing circuitry configured to adjust a light intensity of the light by controlling movement of the reflecting surface. Doing so would allow for electronically controlling the amount of light emitted by the light source, thereby providing a desired image brightness to the wearer.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 2015/0177591).
Regarding claim 16, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the image projection apparatus according to claim 1.
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose an apparatus with a head-up display mounted in a vehicle, comprising: a projection mirror, wherein the projection mirror reflects the image projected from the projection optical system. D’oosterlinck and Sugiyama are related because both disclose display devices.
Sugiyama teaches an apparatus with a head-up display mounted in a vehicle ([0056] teaches: HUD for a vehicle, see Figure 25), comprising:
a projection mirror (Figure 25 depicts: 104, reflection mirror), wherein
the projection mirror reflects the image projected from the projection optical system (Figure 25 depicts: 104, reflection mirror, reflecting image projected from 103, display element).
Regarding claim 17, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the head-up display according to claim 16, wherein the image reflected by the projection mirror is projected on the windshield of the vehicle (Sugiyama: Figure 25 depicts: 104, reflection mirror, reflecting image projected from 103, display element, onto 106, front glass, considered the windshield of the vehicle; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 16, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’oosterlinck (US 2019/0129291) in view of Yajima et al. (US 2015/0268473) in view of Bietry et al. (US 2017/0371173).
D’oosterlinck discloses an apparatus comprising:
a light source to emit light ([0101] discloses: 12, light source apparatus, generates a beam of light);
an image display element ([0101] discloses: 14, light modulator) to modulate the light emitted from the light source to form an image with the modulated light ([0008] discloses: light modulator used to control projected image); and
a projection optical system ([0101] discloses: 16, projection lens assembly) to project the image formed by the image display element (Figure 1 depicts: 16, projector lens assembly, projecting, to 20, display surface, from 14, light modulator; Examiner notes that this is considered to be projecting the image from the light modulator).
D’oosterlinck fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is a head mounted display and a first image projection apparatus; and a second image projection apparatus, wherein the first and second image projection apparatus contain the same systems and wherein both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C, where A denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less, B denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of less than 510 nm, and C denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of greater than 610 nm. D’oosterlinck and Yajima are related because both disclose image display systems.
Yajima teaches disclose wherein the apparatus is a head mounted display (Figure 1 depicts: a head mounted display) and
a first image projection apparatus ([0051] teaches: 22, right display driving unit); and
a second image projection apparatus ([0051] teaches: 24, left display driving unit), wherein the first and second image projection apparatus contain the same systems ([0077] teaches: configurations of 22 and 24 are the same).
D’oosterlinck and Bietry are related because both disclose projection systems.
Bietry teaches an apparatus wherein
both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C ([0042] teaches: green laser light, from light source and projected light, with peak wavelength of 532 nm having only 0.05-1 nm bandwidth; thus giving a spectral spike at 532 ± 1 nm bandwidth; such that A>B and A>C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D’oosterlinck in view of Yajima and Bietry and provide wherein the apparatus is a head mounted display and a first image projection apparatus; and a second image projection apparatus, wherein the first and second image projection apparatus contain the same systems and wherein both the light emitted from the light source and the image projected by the projection optical system satisfy: A>B and A>C, where A denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of 510 nm or more and 610 nm or less, B denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of less than 510 nm, and C denotes a radiation energy of light having a wavelength of greater than 610 nm. Doing so would allow for concentrating the emitted optical energy within the green wavelength region of greatest visual sensitivity, thereby improving the perceived brightness and visibility of the projected image.
Regarding claim 19, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the head-mounted display according to claim 18, wherein for both the first image projection apparatus and the second image projection apparatus, the light source emits the light which satisfies A>B+C (Bietry: [0042] teaches: green laser light with peak wavelength of 532 nm having only 0.05-1 nm bandwidth; thus, substantially all emitted radiation energy is concentrated within the claimed 510-610 nm range A, at 532 ± 1 nm, while the radiation energy below 510 nm and above 610 nm is negligible, such that A>B+C; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 18, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 20, the modified D’oosterlinck discloses the head-mounted display according to claim 18, wherein for both the first image projection apparatus and the second image projection apparatus, the light source emits light that satisfies at least one of A≥2B and A≥2C (Bietry: Figure 2 depicts: intensity of light source emitted from 531 nm-532 nm, is at least 2X the intensity of light outside of the bandwidth; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 18, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Compact Prosecution
Applicant may consider amending the independent claims to require the projection optical system to increase or preserve the 510-610 nm energy relative to wavelengths outside that range, such as A/(B+C)≤ A’/(B’+C’), if supported by the specification, to potentially overcome the rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Frisken (US 10,203,433) and Kozak et al. (US 2013/0016142) both disclose relevant projection optical systems but fails to disclose the proper wavelength requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights