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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an imaging optical member configured to form an image from light emitted from the image generation element” in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hori (JP 2011-076781, see attached machine translation, hereinafter “Hori”).
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a light-emitting device (a light source unit 60 which includes a blue light source device 70; see Figs. 1-8; pg. 2, third-sixth paragraphs; pg. 3, second paragraph) comprising a light source configured to emit laser light (a light source group 72 which includes a plurality of blue light sources 71 that are blue laser light emitters; see Figs. 3-5, 7; pg. 2, fourth paragraph; pg. 3, second and fourth-seventh paragraphs; pg. 6, third-fifth paragraphs; pg. 9, third-fourth, sixth paragraphs); a lens configured to collimate the laser light (a collimator lens 73 is positioned on each emission side on the optical axis of each light source 71; see Figs. 3-7; pg. 3, fifth paragraph; pg. 10, sixth paragraph); and a light-reflecting part having a plurality of reflecting surfaces disposed at intervals in a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lens, the plurality of reflecting surfaces being configured to reflect the collimated light in an intersecting direction to the traveling direction, such that a beam diameter of reflected light reflected off the plurality of reflecting surfaces is greater than a beam diameter of the collimated light (a step-shaped mirror holder 76 that holds a plurality of reflection mirrors 75 is provided, with the mirrors arranged along a direction in which the light is emitted by the light sources 71, the plurality of mirrors reflecting the collimated light at right angles intersecting the traveling direction to form a combined beam from each of the mirrors whose diameter is greater than a beam diameter of the collimated light from each individual light source; see Figs. 3-8; pg. 3, second paragraph, fourth paragraph, sixth-seventh paragraphs; pg. 4, first paragraph; pg. 10, seventh paragraph through pg. 12, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Hori discloses wherein the light-reflecting part comprises a reflecting member having the plurality of reflecting surfaces (the light-reflecting part comprises a step-shaped mirror holder 76 which holds a plurality of reflection mirrors 75 to define the reflecting surfaces; see Figs. 3-8; pg. 3, second paragraph, fourth paragraph, sixth-seventh paragraphs; pg. 4, first paragraph; pg. 10, seventh paragraph through pg. 12, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Hori discloses wherein the plurality of reflecting surfaces have an identical inclination angle relative to the traveling direction (the reflecting surfaces 75 are arranged with the same inclination; see Figs. 3, 5, 7-8; pg. 14, first paragraph); and the light-emitting device further includes a first lens serving as the lens (a collimator lens 73 is positioned on each emission side on the optical axis of each light source 71; see Figs. 3-7; pg. 3, fifth paragraph; pg. 10, sixth paragraph); and a second lens configured to cause an angular intensity distribution of the reflected light to be more uniform and to output the reflected light (a condensing lens 78 for condensing the light emitted from each light source 71 and reflected by the plurality of reflecting surfaces 75; see Figs. 3-6; pg. 6, fourth-fifth paragraphs; pg. 11, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Hori discloses the light-emitting device further comprising a housing configured to house the light source, the first lens, and the light-reflecting part (the light sources 71, first lenses 73, and the light-reflecting part (mirror holder 76 and reflecting surfaces 75) are all housed within a housing of a projector 10 containing the light-emitting device 70; see Figs. 1, 3-4; pg. 2, third-fourth paragraph; pg. 4, second-third paragraphs); wherein the second lens is joined to one component of a plurality of components forming the housing (the second lens 78 is attached to a component holding the mirror holder 76, which is shown most clearly in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Hori discloses a display device comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1 (the light-emitting device 70 forms part of a projector 10 which projects light; see Figs. 1-4; pg. 2, third-fourth paragraph; pg. 4, second paragraph through pg. 6, second paragraph); an image generation element on which light output from the light-emitting device is incident (light output by the light-emitting device 70 is incident on a display element 51; see Figs. 1-3; pg. 2, third paragraph; pg. 3, first paragraph; pg. 5, first paragraph; pg. 8, fourth paragraph through pg. 9, second paragraph); and an imaging optical member configured to form an image from light emitted from the image generating element (light emitted from the image-generating element 51 is output to a projection side optical system 220 that includes a projection side block 168 that includes a fixed lens group 225 and a movable lens group 235 to define projection lens structures which are covered by a lens cover 19 provided over a projection port on the projector housing; see Figs. 1, 3; pg. 2 third paragraph; pg. 4, third paragraph; pg. 5, first paragraph; pg. 8, third and fifth paragraphs; pg. 9, first-second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 11, Hori discloses a light-emitting device (a light source unit 60 which includes a blue light source device 70; see Figs. 1-8; pg. 2, third-sixth paragraphs; pg. 3, second paragraph) comprising a light source configured to emit laser light (a light source group 72 which includes a plurality of blue light sources 71 that are blue laser light emitters; see Figs. 3-5, 7; pg. 2, fourth paragraph; pg. 3, second and fourth-seventh paragraphs; pg. 6, third-fifth paragraphs; pg. 9, third-fourth, sixth paragraphs); a lens configured to collimate the laser light (a collimator lens 73 is positioned on each emission side on the optical axis of each light source 71; see Figs. 3-7; pg. 3, fifth paragraph; pg. 10, sixth paragraph); and a light-reflecting part having a plurality of reflecting surfaces disposed at intervals in a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lens, the plurality of reflecting surfaces being configured to reflect the collimated light in an intersecting direction to the traveling direction, such that a length of a region irradiated with the collimated light emitted to the plurality of reflecting surfaces along the traveling direction is greater than a length of the lens along the intersecting direction (a step-shaped mirror holder 76 that holds a plurality of reflection mirrors 75 is provided, with the mirrors arranged along a direction in which the light is emitted by the light sources 71, the plurality of mirrors reflecting the collimated light at right angles intersecting the traveling direction to form a combined beam from each of the mirrors whose length along the traveling direction is greater than a length of an individual lens 73 along the intersecting direction; see Figs. 3-8; pg. 3, second paragraph, fourth paragraph, sixth-seventh paragraphs; pg. 4, first paragraph; pg. 10, seventh paragraph through pg. 12, third paragraph).
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (US 2019/0113672, hereinafter “Sugiyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a light-emitting device (a light source device 10; see Figs. 1-5, 7-9; para. [0032]-[0036]) comprising a light source configured to emit laser light (a plurality of LEDs 14a-14d which emit laser rays are provided; see Figs. 2, 4-5; see para. [0006], [0035], [0055]); a lens configured to collimate the laser light (collimators 15; see Figs. 2, 4-5, 7-8; para. [0035]-[0036], [0053]-[0054]); and a light-reflecting part having a plurality of reflecting surfaces disposed at intervals in a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lens, the plurality of reflecting surfaces being configured to reflect the collimated light in an intersecting direction to the traveling direction, such that a beam diameter of reflected light reflected off the plurality of reflecting surfaces is greater than a beam diameter of the collimated light (a light guide 17 which has a light guide reflection portion (surface) 172 comprising a plurality of reflection surfaces 172a disposed at intervals along a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lenses 15, the reflection surfaces connected by connection surfaces 172b extending along the traveling direction, the reflection portion reflecting light emitted by the light sources 14a-14d to form a reflected beam having a beam diameter which is greater than a beam diameter of collimated light emitted by each individual light source and collimation lens; see Figs. 2-4, 5b; para. [0038]-[0050], [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama discloses wherein the light-reflecting part comprises a reflecting member having the plurality of reflecting surfaces (the light-reflecting part comprises a reflection portion/surface 172 comprising a plurality of reflection surfaces 172a; see Figs. 2-4, 5b; para. [0038]-[0050], [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama discloses wherein the reflecting member further has connecting surfaces extending in the traveling direction, and connecting adjacent ones of the reflecting surfaces (a plurality of connection surfaces 172b are alternately arranged with the reflection surfaces 172a to connect adjacent reflection surfaces along the reflection portion/surface 172; see Figs. 3b-4, 5b; para. [0040]-[0043], [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Sugiyama discloses wherein the plurality of reflecting surfaces have different inclination angles relative to the traveling direction (elevation angles α of the reflection surfaces 172a have values that gradually increase from a lower position toward an upper position of the reflection portion/surface 172; see Figs. 3b-4, 5b; par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Sugiyama discloses a light-emitting device (a light source device 10; see Figs. 1-5, 7-9; para. [0032]-[0036]) comprising a light source configured to emit laser light (a plurality of LEDs 14a-14d which emit laser rays are provided; see Figs. 2, 4-5; see para. [0006], [0035], [0055]); a lens configured to collimate the laser light (collimators 15; see Figs. 2, 4-5, 7-8; para. [0035]-[0036], [0053]-[0054]); and a light-reflecting part having a plurality of reflecting surfaces disposed at intervals in a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lens, the plurality of reflecting surfaces being configured to reflect the collimated light in an intersecting direction to the traveling direction, such that a length of a region irradiated with the collimated light emitted to the plurality of reflecting surfaces along the traveling direction is greater than a length of the lens along the intersecting direction (a light guide 17 which has a light guide reflection portion (surface) 172 comprising a plurality of reflection surfaces 172a disposed at intervals along a traveling direction of collimated light transmitted through the lenses 15, the reflection surfaces connected by connection surfaces 172b extending along the traveling direction, the reflection portion reflecting light emitted by the light sources 14a-14d to form a reflected beam having a beam diameter/length along the traveling direction is greater than a length along the intersecting direction of each individual lens 15; see Figs. 2-4, 5b; para. [0038]-[0050], [0052]).
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 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori (JP 2011-076781, see attached machine translation). The teachings of Hori have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Hori teaches the light-emitting device further comprising a housing that houses a plurality of the light sources configured to emit laser light, a plurality of the first lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of light sources, and a plurality of light-reflecting parts respectively corresponding to the plurality of first lenses (the light sources 71, first lenses 73, and the light-reflecting part (mirror holder 76 and reflecting surfaces 75) are all housed within a housing of a projector 10 containing the light-emitting device 70; see Figs. 1, 3-4; pg. 2, third-fourth paragraph; pg. 4, second-third paragraphs); wherein the second lens corresponding to at least one of the light reflecting parts is joined to one component of a plurality of components forming the housing (the second lens 78 is attached to a component holding the mirror holder 76, which is shown most clearly in Fig. 4).
However, the teachings of Hori fail to specifically disclose the plurality of the light sources of the light-emitting device emit laser light of different wavelengths, and a plurality of the second lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of the light-reflecting parts are joined to the one component of the plurality of components forming the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-emitting device of Hori by configuring the light sources to emit laser light of different wavelengths, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and MPEP 2143. In this case, modifying the known light-emitting device of Hori by substituting some of the blue laser light sources with light sources emitting laser light of different wavelengths would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to combine the laser light from RGB laser light sources to produce white light or to achieve different shades of blue light from different wavelength blue laser light sources, both of which would enhance the overall color output of the light displayed by the projector containing the light-emitting device.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-emitting device of Hori by providing a plurality of the second lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of the light-reflecting parts joined to the one component of the plurality of components forming the housing, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, modifying the known light-emitting device of Hori by providing a plurality of the second lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of the light-reflecting parts joined to the one component of the plurality of components forming the housing would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to increase the amount of light emitted by the light-emitting device.
However, regarding claim 10, the teachings of Hori fail to specifically disclose wherein an incident angle of light output from the light-emitting device relative to the image generation element is in a range from 10 degrees to 30 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Hori by setting an incident angle of light output from the light-emitting device relative to the image generation element to be in a range from 10 degrees to 30 degrees, 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 ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, modifying the known display device of Hori by setting an incident angle of light output from the light-emitting device relative to the image generation element to be in a range from 10 degrees to 30 degrees would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to ensure the image generation element generates a suitable image to be projected by the imaging optical member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 6, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The light-emitting device according to claim 5, further comprising a first lens serving as the lens; and a second lens configured to collimate the reflected light; wherein in an angular intensity distribution of output light transmitted through the second lens, a difference in intensity between a central portion and an end portion falls within 20%” (emphasis added).
Although light-emitting devices are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights