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
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, 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2021/0405517 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a first laser light emitting element (82, figure 5) that emits first light;
A second laser light emitting element (86, figure 5) that emits second light having same peak wavelength as the first light (paragraph 0066 and 0067),
A diffusion member (193, figure 9) on which the first light and the second light are incident,
A superimposition optical system (203, figure 9) on which light emitted from the diffusion member is incident;
A light modulation device (217, 218, 219, figure 9) that modulates light incident form the superimposition optical system in accordance with image information; and
A projection optical device (224, figure 9) that projects light modulated by the light modulation device, wherein
The first laser light emitting element and the second laser light emitting element have oscillation states different from each other (one is S and one is P polarization, figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches a first light source package (80, 83, figure 5) having a package structure in which a plurality of first laser light emitting elements are mounted (paragraph 0066). And
A second light source package (84, 87, figure 5) in which a plurality of second laser light emitting elements are mounted (paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches the first light and the second light are red light (see paragraph 0066-0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10 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 3, prior art does not teach the first driving frequency of the first light is different from the second driving frequency of the second light. Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter at least inasmuch as it depends form claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Prior art does not teach the first and second light sources having a different duty ratio.
Regarding claim 6, Prior art does not teach a first aspect ratio of a first light emitting surface of the first laser light and a second aspect ratio of a second light emitting surface of the second light are different from each other.
Regarding claim 7, prior art does not teach the constituent materials or composition ratios of the first light and the second light are different.
Regarding claim 8, prior art does not teach the wavelength conversion system.
Regarding claim 10,prior art does not teach that the third laser and the fourth laser have different oscillation states from each other, and the fifth laser light and the sixth laser light have different oscillation states from each other.
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 10/13/2026
