DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on October 24, 2025. Claims 2-3, 5, 16-18, and 20 has been cancelled by the applicant.
Claim 14-15 and 19 are 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Hekun, and Hong Hua. “Systematic characterization and optimization of 3D light field displays.” Optics Express Vol. 25, No. 16 (2017): 18508-18525 [herein “Huang”] in view of US 9,628,684 B2 Liang et al. [herein “Liang”].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Liang, and in further view of Song, Weitao, Yongtian Wang, Dewen Cheng, and Yue Liu. “Light field head-mounted display with correct focus cue using micro structure array.” Chinese Optics Letters 12, no. 6 (2014): 060010 [herein “Song”].
This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections, with the exception to rejection to claim(s) as discussed in the respective section below, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 24, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The reason that this IDS and the IDS submitted on March 12, 2025 are not considered is because of Foreign Patent reference DE 112014003730. Since there has not been provided an English translation of this document or a concise explanation of the relevance of this document, the IDS is not considered. As indicated in both of these IDSs, the reference is lined through to indicate that the reference is not considered because of the noncompliance. All other references in these IDSs have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, which cites “the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value” in Ln. 25, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value”. For the purpose of examination, “the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value” will be interpreted as “a tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value”. Claims 4 and 6-15 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 1.
Claim 1, which cites “the INI-based 3D system” in Ln. 26, should be “the InI-based 3D system”. Claims 4 and 6-15 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 1.
Claim 19, which cites “the set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value” in Ln. 28, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “the set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value”. For the purpose of examination, “the set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value” will be interpreted as “a set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-15 and 19 are 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 14 recites the limitation “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric are selected” in Ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests that if claim 14 were to be rewritten to be “the second metric value” and dependent on claim 1, which provides a basis for “the second metric value”, then the rejection would be overcome (see MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric represent” in Ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests that if claim 15 were to be rewritten to be “the second metric value” and dependent on claim 1, which provides a basis for “the second metric value”, then the rejection would be overcome (see MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value enables design of the InI-based 3D system” in Ln. 28-30. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitation following the phrase will be performed or not. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following the phrase will indeed be performed. The examiner recommends that applicant amends the claim language to “wherein the set of rays traced using the first metric value and the second metric value is configured to design of the InI-based 3D system ” or similar, as supported by the specification, to confine the claim into a clear meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; Claims 16-19 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; and Claim 19 is directed to a device and falls within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 19: The limitations of:
“tracing a set of rays associated with a light field”,
“wherein the tracing starts at the arrayed display device and is carried out through the arrayed optics and to the optical subsection for each element of the arrayed display device and arrayed optics”,
“adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value within a predetermined value or range of values, wherein the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field and quantifies a deformation of ray footprint of a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint, and wherein the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint”, and
“wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics” as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating the direction of light rays can be conducted using a quadratic equation with parameters involving locations for each ray of light (Para. 0072-0074 describe and contain an equation for this calculation),
calculating the direction of light rays can be conducted using a quadratic equation with parameters involving locations for each ray of light as the light ray travels from point source through an array of elements to arrive at a model of a human eye (Para. 0072-0074 describe and contain an equation for this calculation),
calculating the new directions of light rays can be conducted using a quadratic equation with parameters involving locations of both the real and theoretical position for each ray of light to find the average deviation distance after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction is not within a specific value and providing a deformation in the ray of light (Para. 0072-0074 describe and contain an equation for this calculation), and
calculating the new positions of light rays can be conducted using an angular quadratic equation with parameters involving locations for each ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected position is not within a specific value (Para. 0066-0067 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitations of
“adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value within a predetermined value or range of values, wherein the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field and quantifies a deformation of ray footprint of a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint, and wherein the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint”,
“wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics”, and
“based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the average deviation difference distance between the real and theoretical position of rays of a light field if the obtained expected direction is not within a specific value, providing a deformation in the ray of light,
a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the angular positioning of rays of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value, and
a person can mentally design draw with pen and paper the InI system to have components based on the equation parameters used that fall within the specific values for the average deviation difference distance and the angular positioning found in the ray-tracing.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1 and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “in the InI-based 3D system, the system including: an arrayed optics, an arrayed display device capable of producing a plurality of elemental images, a first reference plane representing a virtual central depth plane (CDP) on which light rays emitted by a point source on the display converge to form an image point, a second reference plane representing a viewing window for viewing a reconstructed 3D scene, and an optical subsection representing a model of a human eye” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further the following additional element “a device, comprising: a processor, and a memory comprising processor executable code, wherein upon execution by the processor cause the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 19 not only recite a judicial exception, but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and a field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the first metric value is determined based on a difference real positions of marginal rays on the viewing window obtained by ray tracing and their corresponding paraxial positions on the viewing window” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new directions of light rays can be conducted using a quadratic equation with parameters involving locations of both the real and theoretical position for each ray of light to find the difference in distance after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction is not within a specific value, providing a deformation in the ray of light (Para. 0072-0074 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new positions of light rays can be conducted using an angular quadratic equation with parameters involving locations of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected position is not within a specific value (Para. 0066-0067 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the deviation in angular positioning of rays of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new positions of light rays can be conducted using an angular quadratic equation with parameters involving locations of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction is not within a specific value, providing a global distortion measure (Para. 0066-0067 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the deviation in angular positioning of rays of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value, providing a global distortion measure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new positions of light rays can be conducted using an angular quadratic equation with parameters involving locations of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction is not within a specific value, providing a global distortion measure (Para. 0066-0067 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the deviation in angular positioning of rays of both the real and theoretical position for the center ray of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value, providing a global distortion measure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new positions of each light rays can be conducted using an angular quadratic equation with parameters involving locations for each ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected position of each light ray is not within a specific value (Para. 0066-0067 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the angular positioning of each ray of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein tracing the set of rays includes tracing the set of rays through the eyepiece” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the direction of light rays can be conducted using a quadratic equation with parameters involving locations for each ray of light as the light ray travels from point source through an array of elements to arrive at a model of a human eye before being magnified by an eyepiece (Para. 0072-0074 describe and contain an equation for this calculation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the arrayed display device is a microdisplay device” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the arrayed optics comprises one or more lenslet arrays, each including a plurality of microlenses” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the InI-based 3D system is an InI-based head-mounted display (InI-based HMD) system” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric are selected to achieve a particular image quality” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new directions or positions of light rays can be conducted using quadratic equations with parameters involving locations for each ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction or position is not within a specific value to produce a desired image quality (Para. 0072-0074 and 0066-0067 describe and contain equation for these respective metric calculations).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric are selected to achieve a particular image quality”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the direction or position of rays of a light field if the obtained expected direction or position is not within a specific value to produce a desired image quality.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 15, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric represent a maxima or a minima that provides an optimum design criteria with respect to the first or the second metric” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the new directions or positions of light rays can be conducted using quadratic equations with parameters involving locations for each ray of light after altering the parameters of the equations when sampling data shows that the expected direction or position is not within a specific value to produce a desired image quality within a design tolerance (Para. 0072-0074 and 0066-0067 describe and contain equation for these respective metric calculations).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric represent a maxima or a minima that provides an optimum design criteria with respect to the first or the second metric”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the direction or position of rays of a light field if the obtained expected direction or position is not within a specific value to produce a desired image quality within a design tolerance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4 and 6-15 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Hekun, and Hong Hua. “Systematic characterization and optimization of 3D light field displays.” Optics Express Vol. 25, No. 16 (2017): 18508-18525 [herein “Huang”] in view of US 9,628,684 B2 Liang et al. [herein “Liang”].
As per claim 1, Huang teaches a “method for designing an integral-imaging (InI) based three-dimensional (3D) display system, the method comprising: tracing a set of rays associated with a light field in the InI-based 3D system”. (Pg. 18510, Sect. 1, “we present a systematic approach to fully address the three aforementioned fundamental issues in designing a LF-3D display” [a method for designing a three-dimensional (3D) display system]. Pg. 18516-18517 Sect. 3, “the light field engine was implemented using the InI-based method” [integral-imaging (InI) based]. Pg. 18512 Sect. 3, “As illustrated in Fig. 2(a), to reconstruct the light field of a 3D point, P, the rays emitted by the selected pixels located on different elemental images are directed by the corresponding elements on the modulation plane such that they intersect at the 3D position of reconstruction, or the reconstruction plane” [tracing a set of rays associated with a light field]. Pg. 18512 Sect. 3, “To simulate and characterize the perceived retinal image of a LF-3D display based on the generalized model in Fig. 2, we created a multi-configuration zoom system in Code V® [26], in which each configuration represents the path of an elemental view perceived by a shared eye model” [in the InI-based 3D system]. Further see Sect. 1 and 3. The examiner has interpreted that creating approach to designing a light field-3D display based on integral-imaging (InI) to simulate and characterize the perceived retinal image of a LF-3D display by reconstructing the light field rays as a method for designing an integral-imaging (InI) based three-dimensional (3D) display system, the method comprising: tracing a set of rays associated with a light field in the InI-based 3D system.)
Huang also teaches “the system including: an arrayed optics, an arrayed display device capable of producing a plurality of elemental images”. (Pg. 18512, Sect. 2, “The light field engine minimally consists of a rendering plane, a modulation plane, a central depth plane, a reconstruction plane, and a viewing window” [the system including]. “The rendering plane is where the elemental images are displayed and may be considered as the source defining the positional information of the light field function. It is an abstract representation of an array of displays in SMV systems” [an arrayed display device capable of producing a plurality of elemental images]. Pg. 18512, Sect. 2, “The modulation plane is where the directional samples of the light rays are produced and may be considered as the component defining the directional information of the light field function. It is an abstract representation of an array of optics” [an arrayed optics]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that the light field engine consisting of a rendering plane that displays elemental images and represents an array of displays of a device and a modulation plane that represents an array of optics as the system including: an arrayed optics, an arrayed display device capable of producing a plurality of elemental images.)
Huang also teaches “a first reference plane representing a virtual central depth plane (CDP) on which light rays emitted by a point source on the display converge to form an image point, a second reference plane representing a viewing window for viewing a reconstructed 3D scene”. (Pg. 18513, Sect. 3, “The central depth plane (CDP) is viewed as a reference plane where the light rays created by a point source in the rendering plane converge after propagating through the modulation plane” [a first reference plane representing a virtual central depth plane (CDP) on which light rays emitted by a point source on the display converge]. “It typically refers to the optical conjugate of the rendering plane through the modulation plane. It is where usually the highest spatial resolution of the reconstructed 3D scene can be obtained” [to form an image point]. Pg. 18513 Sect. 2, “The last component of the light field engine is the viewing window, which defines the area with which a viewer observes the reconstructed 3D scene” [a second reference plane representing a viewing window for viewing a reconstructed 3D scene]. Further see Sect. 2-3. The examiner has interpreted that a central depth plane (CDP) where the light rays that are created by a point source in the rendering plane converge to reconstruct a spatial resolution of the reconstructed 3D scene and a viewing window which defines the area with which a viewer observes the reconstructed 3D scene as a first reference plane representing a virtual central depth plane (CDP) on which light rays emitted by a point source on the display converge to form an image point and a second reference plane representing a viewing window for viewing a reconstructed 3D scene.)
Huang also teaches “an optical subsection representing a model of a human eye” (Pg. 18513 Sect. 2, “the eye model that simulates the optics properties of the human visual system is carefully placed so that its entrance pupil matches the location of the viewing window of the light field engine” [an optical subsection representing a model of a human eye]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that placing an eye model that simulates the optics properties of the human visual system as an optical subsection representing a model of a human eye.)
Huang also teaches “wherein the tracing starts at the arrayed display device and is carried out through the arrayed optics and to the optical subsection for each element of the arrayed display device and arrayed optics”. (Pg. 18512 Sect. 3, “To simulate and characterize the perceived retinal image” [the tracing] “of a LF-3D display based on the generalized model in Fig. 2, we created a multi-configuration zoom system in Code V® [26], in which each configuration represents the path of an elemental view perceived by a shared eye model” [starts at the arrayed display device and is carried out through the arrayed optics and to the optical subsection]. Fig. 2(a) shows the path of the elements from the rendering plane [e.g., arrayed display device] through the modulation plane [e.g., arrayed optics] to the eye mode [e.g., optical subsection]. Pg. 18517 Sect. 3, “The retinal PSF of each elemental view given by Eq. (6), can be simulated independently using CODE V, and the accumulated PSF of the retinal image of such a reconstructed point given by Eq. (4) was obtained by integrating the retinal PSFs of all the elemental views passing through the eye pupil,” [for each element of the arrayed display device and arrayed optics]. Further see Sect. 3. The examiner has interpreted that independently simulating the perceived retinal image where each configuration represents the path of an elemental view perceived by a shared eye model as wherein the tracing starts at the arrayed display device and is carried out through the arrayed optics and to the optical subsection for each element of the arrayed display device and arrayed optics.)
Huang also teaches “adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value within a predetermined value or range of values, wherein the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field and quantifies a deformation of ray footprint of a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint”. (Pg. 18516 Sect. 2, “key system design parameters such as view density and fill factor of each elemental view will influence the retinal response in viewing LF-3D displays” [adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value]. Pg. 18525 Sect. 5, “display configuration with a view density of 0.57mm−2, by reducing the fill factor to 0.6, the accommodation error for targets rendered at 1 diopter away from the CDP can be reduced to nearly zero and the contrast magnitude and gradient of the retinal image are also noticeably improved. In this case, it might be advantageous to adopt a fill factor of 0.6 that offers negligible accommodation error and high image contrast for a depth range of ± 1 diopters from the CDP. For a display configuration with a view density of 1.27mm−2 or more, reducing the fill factor mainly improves the accommodative error for targets with large displacement from the CDP” [within a predetermined value or range of values]. Pg. 18509 Sect. 1, “Each of the directional samples represents the subtle difference of the object when viewed from slightly different positions and thus is regarded as an elemental view of the object” [the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field]. Pg. 18514 Sect 2, “the lateral displacements between two adjacent elemental views on the viewing window, Δdx and Δdy, along the x- and y-directions, respectively, are given by Eq(2)” [quantifies a deformation of ray footprint]. Equ. (2) does that the lateral displacements are a function of the view density, e.g., wherein the first metric value quantifies a deformation of ray footprint. Pg. 18513 Sect. 2, “the ray bundle originated from a pixel on the rendering plane propagates through the modulating plane and projects a footprint on the viewing window resembling the geometric arrangement of the corresponding modulation elements on the modulating plane” [a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint]. Further see Sect. 1-2 and 5. The examiner has interpreted that having view density as a system design parameter to influence the spatial resolution and DOF of a LF-3D display, to determine a view density of 0.57mm-2 and 1.27mm-2 in reducing accommodation error to zero, determining the lateral displacements between adjacent element views on a viewing window as a ray bundle propagates and projects a footprint on the viewing window to resemble the geometric arrangement of the corresponding modulation elements on the modulating plane, and to represent direction samples from slightly different position as adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value within a predetermined value or range of values, wherein the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field and quantifies a deformation of ray footprint of a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint.)
Huang also teaches “wherein the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint.” (Pg. 18516 Sect. 2, “Peye helps define the entry position for each of the elemental view at the entrance pupil of the eye model and thus determines which sub-part of the eye model will interact with the corresponding elemental view and changes the form of its corresponding PSFc calculated from Eq. (6).” Pg. 18515 Sect. 2, “Peye is the footprint of each elemental view upon the pupil of the eye model” [real position on the second reference plane]. Pg. 18515, Sect. 2, “For an elemental view indexed as (m,n), its entry position on the eye pupil, (dcxm, dcyn), is given by Equ(5)” [theoretical position]. Pg. 18513 Sect. 2, “the ray bundle originated from a pixel on the rendering plane propagates through the modulating plane and projects a footprint on the viewing window resembling the geometric arrangement of the corresponding modulation elements on the modulating plane” [marginal rays on the second reference plane]. Pg. 18515, Sect. 2, “The footprint size of an elemental view projected on the viewing window is characterized by its radial distance, Rfp, given as Equ(2)” [diagonal width of the paraxial footprint]. Further see Sect. 2. Equ. 8 shows that footprint is calculated deformation between the real and theoretical positions to the diagonal width. The examiner has interpreted that equation 8 given that Peye defines the entry point at the entrance pupil and is the footprint of each elemental view upon the pupil of the eye model from a ray bundle originated from a pixel on the rendering plane that propagates through modulating plane and projects a foot print on the viewing window characterized by its radial distance as wherein the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint.)
Huang also teaches “based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value [and the second metric value,] designing the INI-based 3D system”. (Pg. 18522 Sect. 5, “the number of views that fill the eye pupil or the view density plays a key role in influencing not only the spatial resolution and DOF of a LF-3D display but also the accuracy of focus cues rendered the display to drive proper eye accommodative response” [using the first metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system]. “In viewing a natural scene of different depths in the real word, the eye observes infinite number of views entering the eye pupil from the scene, which yields subtle yet accurate focus cues to drive eye accommodative responses. Naturally, in designing a LF-3D displays, the more the number of views or the higher the view density with which we sample the light field to be rendered, the less the accommodation error and thus the more accurate the accommodation cue may be anticipated” [based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system]. Further see Sect. 5. The examiner has interpreted that designing a LF-3D display those renders the light field where the view density plays a key role in the spatial resolution and accuracy of display as based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system.)
Huang does not specifically teach “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics” and “based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely 3D light-field display devices, Liang teaches “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics.” (Col. 2 Ln. 36-42, “Any particular manufactured unit can deviate from the design due to any of a number of reasons, including, for example, lens axis tilting, optical center shifting, microlens array geometry mismatch, and the like” [deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics]. “According to at least one embodiment, one or more calibration processing steps are performed during the manufacturing process to estimate the parameters for describing these variations” [wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value (emphasis added)]. Col. 11 Ln. 16-21, “Aberration causes distortions to the resulting image. Different types of distortion may take place, including for example defocus, field curvature, spherical distortion, astigmatism, coma, and/or the like. In practice, the magnitude and nature of the aberration depends on, for example, the optical design, lens configuration, wavelength, and manufacture process” [second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values]. Col. 16 Ln. 23-28, “Each mapping function 1122 can includes any of a number of parameters, including the global translation and rotation between the microlens array 802 and the image sensor 803, the distortion of the microlens array 802, the local distortion individual microlenses of the microlens array 802,” [wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field]. Further see Col. 2, 11, and 16. The examiner has interpreted that performing calibration processing steps to estimated parameters that account for deviations to the design including microlens array geometry mismatch that cause a magnitude in distortion of an image through of mapping of parameters for the microlens distortion as wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics.)
Liang teaches “based on the tracing of the set of rays using [the first metric value and] the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system”. (Col. 16 Ln, 65- Col. 17 Ln. 4, “generation of the corrected light-field data 1322 by the aberration correction engine 1320 may include applying the product calibration data 940 to correct the light-field data 1310 to remove and/or reduce the effects of design departures, which are departures of the main lens design 910 and/or the sensor design 912 of a camera design from their ideal counterparts” [e.g., based on the tracing of the set of rays using the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system]. Further see Col. 16 and 17. The examiner has interpreted that generating the corrected light field data by removing or reducing the effects of design departures using the aberration corrections for the main lens design as based on the tracing of the set of rays using [the first metric value and] the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics” and “based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Liang, into that of Huang because this modification of adjusting the system based on a second metric for the advantageous purpose of providing correction to and high resolution data for aberration in image processing system (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
As per claim 4, Huang teaches “wherein the first metric value is determined based on a difference real positions of marginal rays on the viewing window obtained by ray tracing and their corresponding paraxial positions on the viewing window.” (Pg. 18516 Sect. 2, “Peye helps define the entry position for each of the elemental view at the entrance pupil of the eye model and thus determines which sub-part of the eye model will interact with the corresponding elemental view and changes the form of its corresponding PSFc calculated from Eq. (6).” Pg. 18515 Sect. 2, “Peye is the footprint of each elemental view upon the pupil of the eye model” [real position on the viewing window]. Pg. 18515, Sect. 2, “For an elemental view indexed as (m,n), its entry position on the eye pupil, (dcxm, dcyn), is given by Equ(5)” [Equ. (5) demonstrates the difference between real positions and corresponds paraxial positions]. Pg. 18513 Sect. 2, “the ray bundle originated from a pixel on the rendering plane propagates through the modulating plane and projects a footprint on the viewing window resembling the geometric arrangement of the corresponding modulation elements on the modulating plane” [on the viewing window obtained by ray tracing]. The examiner has interpreted that defining the entry position for each of the elemental view at the entrance pupil of the eye model and determining the footprint for the entry positions with respect to entry positions on the elemental view window as a ray bundle propagates and projects a footprint on the viewing window to resemble the geometric arrangement of the corresponding modulation elements on the modulating plane as wherein the first metric value is determined based on a difference real positions of marginal rays on the viewing window obtained by ray tracing and their corresponding paraxial positions on the viewing window.)
As per claim 6, Huang does not specifically teach “wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane.”
However, Liang teaches “wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane.” (Col. 10 Ln. 55-57, “(x, y) denotes the spatial coordinates on the microlens array, and (u, v) denotes the angular coordinates on the aperture plane” [angular deviation from the second reference plane]. Col. 11 Ln. 24-28, “Aberration means that after a light ray passes through the lens, it does not travel along the path predicted by the ideal thin lens model. Therefore, the 4D coordinates of that lightray are different from the ideal coordinates. The deviation is unique to each light ray, and can be described as a mapping function from ideal coordinates (x', y', u', v') to non-ideal coordinates (x, y, u, v)” [deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field]. Col. 19 Ln. 45-49, “Any deviation from this may indicate that the aberration correction has not applied perfectly. Such a deviation may be, for example, a deviation in the straightness and/or slope of one or more of the edges in the epipolar image” [wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with a deviation]. The examiner has interpreted that a deviation in the straightness of the image when the spatial coordinates are different from the angular coordinates on the aperture plane when a light ray does not travel the path predicted as wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the second metric value is determined in accordance with an angular deviation between real and theoretical positions of a chief ray of a center object field measured from the second reference plane”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Liang, into that of Huang because this modification of providing a second metric to determine angular deviations for the advantageous purpose of providing correction to and high resolution data for aberrations due to field curvature and spherical distortion (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25 & Col. 11 Ln. 11-28). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
As per claim 7, Huang does not specifically teach “wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure.”
However, Liang teaches “wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure.” (Col. 11 Ln. 24-28, “the 4D coordinates of that lightray are different from the ideal coordinates. The deviation is unique to each light ray, and can be described as a mapping function from ideal coordinates (x', y', u', v') to non-ideal coordinates (x, y, u, v)” [wherein the second metric value represents a distortion measure]. Col. 16 Ln. 23-28, “Each mapping function 1122 can includes any of a number of parameters, including the global translation and rotation between the microlens array 802 and the image sensor 803, the distortion of the microlens array 802, the local distortion individual microlenses of the microlens array 802,” [global distortion measure]. The examiner has interpreted that mapping the deviation from ideal coordinates to non-ideal coordinates for a global translation between the microlens array and the image sensor as wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the second metric value represents a global distortion measure”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Liang, into that of Huang because this modification of providing a global distortion measure for the advantageous purpose of providing correction to and high resolution data for aberrations due to field curvature and spherical distortion (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25 & Col. 11 Ln. 11-28). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
As per claim 8, Huang does not specifically teach “wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof.”
However, Liang teaches “wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof.” (Col. 11 Ln. 24-28, “Aberration means that after a light ray passes through the lens, it does not travel along the path predicted by the ideal thin lens model. Therefore, the 4D coordinates of that lightray are different from the ideal coordinates. The deviation is unique to each light ray, and can be described as a mapping function from ideal coordinates (x', y', u', v') to non-ideal coordinates (x, y, u, v)” [wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a position of a virtual elemental image from a paraxial position thereof]. Col. 11 Ln. 56-67, “An example of mapping coordinates between real and idealized lens systems is illustrated in diagram 850 of FIG. 8, with reference to the center pixel” [center position]. “The rays are launched at an origin 860” [virtual CDP]. “The rays are traced through all of the elements of the real lens 870 into the real world. The rays are then traced through a corresponding ideal model of the ideal lens 880. The rays terminate at a terminus 890 on a sensor plane, and the rays' 4D coordinates are recorded. The difference between the 4D coordinate the ray was launched with (i.e., at the origin 860) and the 4D coordinate it terminates at (i.e., at the terminus 890) is the correction vector for that specific pixel” [deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images]. The examiner has interpreted that mapping the deviation from ideal coordinates to non-ideal coordinates by tracing ray center pixel from origin to termination point for specific pixels as wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the second metric value is computed as a deviation of a center position of a virtual elemental image of the plurality of the elemental images on the virtual CDP from a paraxial position thereof”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Liang, into that of Huang because this modification of determining deviation in the elemental images for the advantageous purpose of providing correction to and high resolution data for aberrations due to field curvature and spherical distortion (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25 & Col. 11 Ln. 11-28). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
As per claim 9, Huang does not specifically teach “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually.”
However, Liang teaches “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually.” (Col. 2 Ln. 39-41, “According to at least one embodiment, one or more calibration processing steps are performed during the manufacturing process to estimate the parameters for describing these variations” [wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value]. Col. 16 Ln. 23-28, “Each mapping function 1122 can includes any of a number of parameters, including the global translation and rotation between the microlens array 802 and the image sensor 803, the distortion of the microlens array 802, the local distortion individual microlenses of the microlens array 802,” [with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field]. Col. 11 Ln. 64 – Col. 12 Ln. 2, “The difference between the 4D coordinate the ray was launched with (i.e., at the origin 860) and the 4D coordinate it terminates at (i.e., at the terminus 890) is the correction vector for that specific pixel” [of each elemental image individually]. “This process defines what is called the ray correction function” [to further optimize imaging]. The examiner has interpreted that performing calibration processing steps to estimate parameters that account for deviations to the design through the mapping of parameters for the microlens distortion and determining the difference between origin and termination coordinates to correct the ray at each pixel as wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out with respect to the ray positional sampling of the light field to further optimize imaging of each elemental image individually”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Liang, into that of Huang because this modification of optimizing the images as each elemental image point for the advantageous purpose of providing correction to and high resolution data for aberrations due to field curvature and spherical distortion (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25 & Col. 11 Ln. 11-28). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
As per claim 11, Huang teaches “wherein the arrayed display device is a microdisplay device.” (Pg. 18517 Sect. 3, “The microdisplay in the model was set up with five wavelengths, 470nm, 510 nm, 555 nm, 610 nm, 650 nm, respectively, to simulate a full-color LF-3D display” [wherein the arrayed display device is a microdisplay device].)
As per claim 12, Huang teaches “wherein the arrayed optics comprises one or more lenslet arrays, each including a plurality of microlenses.” (Pg. 18511, Sect. 2, “An InI-based display, utilizing the same principle as integral photography technique invented by Lipmamn in 1908 [24], typically consists of a display panel and a 2D array which can be a micro-lens array (MLA)” [plurality of microlenses]. Pg. 18512 Sect. 2, “The modulation plane is where the directional samples of the light rays are produced and may be considered as the component defining the directional information of the light field function. It is an abstract representation of an array of optics [11–15], a lenslet array” [wherein the arrayed optics comprises one or more lenslet arrays]. The examiner has interpreted the array optics that is a lenslet array being a microlense array as wherein the arrayed optics comprises one or more lenslet arrays, each including a plurality of microlenses.)
As per claim 13, Huang teaches “wherein the InI-based 3D system is an InI-based head-mounted display (InI-based HMD) system.” (Pg. 18511 Sect. 1, “It is worth mentioning that the methods and results can be generally applicable to both the emerging head-mounted LF-3D displays and the better-established eyewear-free direct-view LF-3D displays” [wherein the InI-based 3D system is an InI-based head-mounted display (InI-based HMD) system].)
As per claim 14, Huang teaches “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric are selected to achieve a particular image quality.” (Pg. 18525 Sect. 5, “display configuration with a view density of 0.57mm−2, by reducing the fill factor to 0.6, the accommodation error for targets rendered at 1 diopter away from the CDP can be reduced to nearly zero and the contrast magnitude and gradient of the retinal image are also noticeably improved. In this case, it might be advantageous to adopt a fill factor of 0.6 that offers negligible accommodation error and high image contrast for a depth range of ± 1 diopters from the CDP. For a display configuration with a view density of 1.27mm−2 or more, reducing the fill factor mainly improves the accommodative error for targets with large displacement from the CDP” [wherein the predetermined values for one of the first are selected to achieve a particular image quality]. The examiner has interpreted that having a view density of 0.57mm-2 and 1.27mm-2 in reducing accommodation error to zero as wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric are selected to achieve a particular image quality.)
As per claim 15, Huang teaches “wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric represent a maxima or a minima that provides an optimum design criteria with respect to the first or the second metric.” (Pg. 18525 Sect. 5, “display configuration with a view density of 0.57mm−2, by reducing the fill factor to 0.6, the accommodation error for targets rendered at 1 diopter away from the CDP can be reduced to nearly zero and the contrast magnitude and gradient of the retinal image are also noticeably improved. In this case, it might be advantageous to adopt a fill factor of 0.6 that offers negligible accommodation error and high image contrast for a depth range of ± 1 diopters from the CDP. For a display configuration with a view density of 1.27mm−2 or more, reducing the fill factor mainly improves the accommodative error for targets with large displacement from the CDP” [wherein the predetermined values for one of the first metric represent a minima that provides an optimum design criteria with respect to the first metric]. The examiner has interpreted that having a view density of 1.27mm-2 or more in reducing accommodation error to zero as wherein the predetermined values, or range of values, for one or both of the first or the second metric represent a maxima or a minima that provides an optimum design criteria with respect to the first or the second metric.)
Re Claim 19, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, Huang teaches “A device, comprising: a processor, and a memory comprising processor executable code, wherein upon execution by the processor cause the processor”. (Pg. 18510, Sect. 1, “we present a systematic approach to fully address the three aforementioned fundamental issues in designing a LF-3D display” [e.g., a device, comprising: a processor, and a memory comprising processor executable code, wherein upon execution by the processor cause the processor]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Liang, and in further view of Song, Weitao, Yongtian Wang, Dewen Cheng, and Yue Liu. “Light field head-mounted display with correct focus cue using micro structure array.” Chinese Optics Letters 12, no. 6 (2014): 060010 [herein “Song”].
As per claim 10, Huang teaches “wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece [positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane]” and “wherein tracing the set of rays includes tracing the set of rays through the eyepiece.” (Pg. 18512, Sect. 2, “The light field engine minimally consists of a rendering plane, a modulation plane, a central depth plane, a reconstruction plane, and a viewing window. The rendering plane is where the elemental images are displayed and may be considered as the source defining the positional information of the light field function. It is an abstract representation of an array of displays in SMV systems [11–15], or a single physical display [16] or its virtual image through an eyepiece” [wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece]. Pg. 18512 Sect. 3, “To simulate and characterize the perceived retinal image” [tracing the set of rays] “of a LF-3D display based on the generalized model in Fig. 2, we created a multi-configuration zoom system in Code V® [26], in which each configuration represents the path of an elemental view perceived by a shared eye model” [tracing the set of rays through a path]. Fig. 2(a) shows a path of the elements from the rendering plane [e.g., arrayed display device through an eye piece] through the modulation plane [e.g., arrayed optics] to the eye mode [e.g., optical subsection]. The examiner has interpreted that a rendering plane as a source of a virtual image through an eyepiece and simulating the perceived retinal image where each configuration represents the path of an elemental view perceived by a shared eye model as wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece and wherein tracing the set of rays includes tracing the set of rays through the eyepiece.)
Huang and Liang does not specifically teach “wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely 3D light-field display devices, Song teaches “wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane”. (Pg. 060010-1 Col. 2 “we propose a light field head-mounted display (LF-HMD) combining a traditional HMD and integral imaging” [InI-based system], “which can provide dense light field particularly at the exit pupil of the HMD. As the viewing zone for the generated rays is quite small compared to other true 3D display methods mentioned above, a relatively small amount of data is required to form the 3D image with correct depth information for the crystalline lenses of the eyes” [3D system]. Pg. 060010-2 Col. 1, “Figure 2 shows the schematic diagram of the proposed LF-HMD system. A pinhole array or lens array, acted as the MSA, is inserted between the eyepiece and the image source” [e.g., eyepiece is after arrayed optics]. Fig. 2 shows that the eyepiece lenses are between the MSA [arrayed optics] and the eye pupil [second reference plane]. The examiner has interpreted that a 3D light field head-mounted display combining a traditional HMD and integral imaging that uses an eyepiece between the MSA and eye pupil as wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the InI-based 3D system further includes an eyepiece positioned between the arrayed optics and the second reference plane”, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Song, into that of Huang and Liang because this modification of positioning the eyepiece after the arrayed optics for the advantageous purpose of forming an enlarged imaged at the correct depth (Song, Pg. 060010-1 Col. 2). Further motivation to combine be that Huang, Liang, Song are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 11-14, filed October 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 11-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims in the rejection above and further discussed in the subsequent section below.
Applicant's arguments filed on October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the second metric” in claims 14 and 15 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) since claim 1 recites “a second metric” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11).
MPEP § 2173.05(e) recites “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.”
As amended, claim 1 still only provides an earlier recitation of a “first metric value” and a “second metric value”. Claim 1 does not provide a recitation for a “second metric” as the applicant states or even a “first metric”. Therefore, when claim 14 and 15 recite “the first or the second metric”, the claims are indefinite since there are no earlier recitations of the first metric or the second metric.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that “the first or the second metric” in claims 14 and 15 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claims 1 because cited references fail to teach “the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-13).
MPEP § 2143.03 states “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As original mapped in the previous Office Action and above in claim 1, Huang discloses “the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint” as seen in equation 8 given that Peye defines the entry point at the entrance pupil and is the footprint of each elemental view upon the pupil of the eye model from a ray bundle originated from a pixel on the rendering plane that propagates through modulating plane and projects a foot print on the viewing window characterized by its radial distance. Additional emphasis has been added to this mapping in the rejection above to the amended claim 1.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claim 1 are disclosed in Huang or Liang, and the combination of these references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Huang in view of Liang is maintained.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claims 1 because cited references fail to teach “the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 13-14).
MPEP § 2143.03 states “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As original mapped in the previous Office Action and above in claim 1, Liang discloses “the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics” as estimating parameters that account for deviations to the design including microlens array geometry mismatch that cause a magnitude in distortion of an image through of mapping of parameters for the microlens distortion. As noted in Col. 2 Ln. 36-42, parameters are estimated to describe the variations; the variation are the microlens array geometry mismatch from the previous sentence. Additional emphasis has been added to this mapping in the rejection above to the amended claim 1.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claim 1 are disclosed in Huang or Liang, and the combination of these references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Huang in view of Liang is maintained.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not render the amend claims 1 obvious because Liang is a set of post-processing operations (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 14-15).
MPEP § 2145(IV) recites “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”. MPEP § 2145(IV) also recites “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so.”
The examiner provide the motivation to combine Liang into Huang as also seen above. The motivation includes providing correction to and high resolution data for aberration in image processing system (Liang, Col. 1 Ln. 20-25). Further motivation to combine be that Huang and Liang are analogous art to the current claim are directed to 3D light-field display devices. While the examiner does agree with the applicant that the primary purpose of Liang is to perform calibration steps on a manufactured unit, as provided in the mapping in the rejection of claim 1, these steps serve to also improve the design after the light field aberrations are determined and reduced. Therefore, these same steps can be applied for the use of current and new design.
Therefore, there is motivation to combine Liang into that of Huang, and the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Huang in view of Liang is maintained.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical field and are significantly more than the abstract idea (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 15-16).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. MPEP § 2106.05(a) also recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process and mathematical operations in the rejection above. The new limitation of “based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system”, has been identified as mental process in the rejection above since a person can mentally design draw with pen and paper the InI system to have components based on the equation parameters used that fall within the specific values for the average deviation difference distance and the angular positioning that were found in the ray-tracing. The additional elements are “in the InI-based 3D system, the system including: an arrayed optics, an arrayed display device capable of producing a plurality of elemental images, a first reference plane representing a virtual central depth plane (CDP) on which light rays emitted by a point source on the display converge to form an image point, a second reference plane representing a viewing window for viewing a reconstructed 3D scene, and an optical subsection representing a model of a human eye” and “a device, comprising: a processor, and a memory comprising processor executable code, wherein upon execution by the processor cause the processor” which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process or a mathematical concept in the rejection above. With the exception of the additional element limitations in the dependent claims which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and implementing the field of use/technological environment, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology or through the use of meaningful limitations.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes, mathematical concepts, and limitations that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or implement the field of use/technological environment.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 16).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. For example, the limitation of amended claim 1, “adjusting one or more parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system to obtain at least a first metric value within a predetermined value or range of values, wherein the first metric value corresponds to a ray directional sampling of the light field and quantifies a deformation of ray footprint of a given ray bundle of the light field from its paraxial footprint, and wherein the first metric value is determined in accordance with a relative ratio of an average deviated distance between a real and a theoretical position of marginal rays on the second reference plane to a diagonal width of the paraxial footprint”, has been identified as mental process in the rejection above since a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter that used to calculate the average deviation difference distance between the real and theoretical position of rays of a light field if the obtained expected direction is not within a specific value. This provides a metric for a deformation in the ray of light, and a person can adjust this parameter. Further, the limitation of amended claim 1, “wherein adjusting the one or parameters associated with the InI-based 3D system is carried out to further obtain a second metric value within another predetermined value or range of values, wherein the second metric value corresponds to a ray positional sampling of the light field that accounts for deformations induced by neighboring elements of at least the arrayed optics”, has been identified as mental process in the rejection above since a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper an equation parameter used to calculate the angular positioning of rays of a light field if the obtained expected angular position is not within a specific value. This provides another metric for a deformation of the light rays, and a person can adjust this parameter. Lastly, “based on the tracing of the set of rays using the first metric value and the second metric value, designing the INI-based 3D system” has been identified as mental process in the rejection above since a person can mentally design draw with pen and paper the InI system to have components based on the equation parameters used that fall within the specific values for the average deviation difference distance and the angular positioning that were found in the ray-tracing. After tracing the rays and improving the result with the metrics, a person can select the parameters provide the results within the metrics for using in select requirements and designs for an improved system.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without providing any additional rational or evidence (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 16).
With the examiner recognizes that the applicant has referred to a quotation from the Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567, the applicant has not made a clear link to any specifics of the decision with regards to aspects of the instant application. The examiner recommends drawing a clear link of the claims of the instant application to this decision and with respect to Enfish (see MPEP § 2106.06(b)) in the arguments for comparison in the improvement integrating the claims into a practical application as whole for further consideration.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth in the provided above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0102545 A1 Hua, Hong et al. teaches a wearable 3D augmented reality display and method, which may include 3D integral imaging optics with a low crosstalk but with a narrow viewing zone to address to the accommodation-convergence discrepancy problem and visual fatigue by variable focus optics.
US 2014/0340390 A1 Lanman, Douglas teaches a method of receiving defect information for a first pixel of a microdisplay of a near-eye light field display device and identifying a second pixel of the microdisplay, where the first pixel and the second pixel contribute to a portion of the retinal image. Based on the defect information, a value of the second pixel within an array of elemental images is modified to produce a corrected array of elemental images for display by the microdisplay
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188