DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 13, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 10, 14, and 15.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “first lens area implements values of a first lens function at the pixels on which the first pattern area is displayed and wherein the first lens function is defined to implement a first optical power across all of the pixels of the display device” and the amended phrase “second lens area implements values of a second lens function at the pixels on which the second pattern area is displayed and wherein the second lens function is defined to implement a second optical power across all of the pixels of the display device” are not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed.
Although the specification discloses the first lens function and the second lens may be displayed across all of the pixels of the display device, it does not mean and the specification does not disclose that the same optical power is displayed across all of the pixels. Rather, the lens value corresponding to the first optical power is only corresponding to the first pattern area and the lens value corresponding to the second optical power is only corresponding to the second pattern area. Specifically, as shown in Figure 6, the lens function (620) displayed across all of the pixels of the display device has different optical powers and therefore different lens values corresponding to different pattern areas (H1 to H4). Only if the optical powers at different spatial location of the display device corresponding to different pattern area be different, the patterns then can be projected at different distance, as claimed and as shown in Figure 6. Now, if both of the first optical power and second optical power are displayed across all of the pixels of the display device, then the optical power for the whole pixels of the display device would be equal to first optical power adds the second optical power, and therefore will be the same for each pixel of the display device. This means the first pattern and the second pattern will not be able to be projected to the different distances.
The claims therefore are not fully supported by the specification of originally filed.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “first lens area implements values of a first lens function at the pixels on which the first pattern area is displayed and wherein the first lens function is defined to implement a first optical power across all of the pixels of the display device” and the amended phrase “second lens area implements values of a second lens function at the pixels on which the second pattern area is displayed and wherein the second lens function is defined to implement a second optical power across all of the pixels of the display device” that are not enable by the specification of originally filed.
It is noted that if the first optical power and the second optical power is displayed across all of the pixels of the display device, then this means the optical power for the whole pixels of the display device would be equal to first optical power adds the second optical power, and therefore will be the same for each pixel of the display device. This means the first pattern and the second pattern will not be able to be projected to the different distances. The claims therefore are not enabled by the specification and the claims. The claims are also not operable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Li (US 2018/0314065 A1)
Claims 1 and 14 have been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Li teaches, with regard to amended claims 1 and 14, a head-up display that serves as the display engine arranged to generate pattern for display by a display device, such as a phase spatial light modulator (3, Figure 1) that implicitly comprises pixels, wherein the display engine is arranged to generate a pattern that is comprised of a first pattern area (31, Figure 2) comprising a summed representation of a first hologram (301+303, Figure 2), of a first image for projection onto a first image plane (located at 11 and then S1) and a first lens area (305).
The first lens area (305) implements vales of a first lens function at the pixels on which the first pattern area is displayed and wherein the first lens function is defined to implement a first optical power corresponds to the value of the first lens function, (with regard to the amendment). In response to amendment concerning “first optical power across all of the pixels of the display device”, this reference does not teach explicitly that the optical power of the first lens function of the first lens area is across all of the pixels of the display device. However, such feature is also not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed, for the reasons of rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, set forth above. Furthermore, this feature will not enable the feature “first image and second image are projected different distances from the pattern” claimed in the claims, which would make the engine not operable and not enable. This phrase therefore cannot be examined further. Li teaches that the first optical power is across all of the pixels of the display device corresponding to the first pattern (301+303) in order to project the first image to the first image plane (11, Figures 1 and 2). The first optical power is not intended to be across the pixels of the display device corresponding to the second pattern (302+304) the same way as the instant application as shown in Figure 4.
Li teaches that the pattern is further comprised of a second pattern area (32) comprising a summed representation of a second hologram (302+304) of a second image for projection onto a second image plane (located at 12 and then S2) and a second lens area (306).
The second lens area (306) implements vales of a second lens function at the pixels on which the second pattern area is displayed and wherein the second lens function is defined to implement a second optical power corresponds to the value of the second lens function, (with regard to the amendment). In response to amendment concerning “second optical power across all of the pixels of the display device”, this reference does not teach explicitly that the optical power of the second lens function of the second lens area is across all of the pixels of the display device. However, such feature is also not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed, for the reasons of rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, set forth above. Furthermore, this feature will not enable the feature “first image and second image are projected different distances from the pattern” as claimed in the claims, which would make the display engine not operable and not enable. This phrase therefore cannot be examined further. Li teaches that the second optical power is across all of the pixels of the display device corresponding to the second pattern (302+304) in order to project the second image to the second image plane (12, Figures 1 and 2). The second optical power is not intended to be across the pixels of the display device corresponding to the first pattern (301+303) the same way as the instant application as shown in Figure 4.
Li teaches the first optical power and the second optical power are different, (please see paragraph [0042]), and specifically because the first optical power only across the pixels for the first pattern and the second optical power only across the pixels for the second pattern such that the first image and the second image are projected different distances from the pattern when the pattern is illuminated.
Li teaches that the first pattern area (31, Figure 1) and the second pattern area (32) are arranged on sub-regions of the display device which implicitly allows the display engine to display the first pattern area and the second pattern area substantially simultaneously.
Li teaches that the each of the first pattern area and the second pattern area is arranged to occupy fewer that all the display pixels of the display device, (please see 31 and 32 on the phase spatial light modulator 3, Figure 1) and the first pattern area and the second pattern area do not overlap one another.
With regard to claim 14, Li further teaches display engine is an image projector, (please see Figure 1). Li also teaches to include a display device, (please see Figure 1) and a light source (1, Figure 1) arranged to illuminate the pattern displayed by the display device.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, this reference does not teach explicitly that the pattern further comprises a third pattern area at least partial replica of the first hologram and a third lens are of the first lens function and a fourth pattern area comprising an at least partial replica of the second hologram and fourth lens area of the second lens function. However, such modifications are considered to be obvious to one skilled in the art at time of invention since it only involves simple duplication of working parts for the purpose of creating pattern as desired.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Li teaches that the first pattern (303) comprises a first grating function having a first grating period which translates the first image on the first image plane and the second pattern (304) comprises a second grating function having a second grating period which translates the second image on the second image plane, (please see paragraph [0042]).
With regard to claim 7, Li teaches that the first image and the second image may each have light areas and dark areas, (please see Figure 2). But this reference does not teach explicitly to have the first and second image, when viewed along a common axis, with light area of first image partially overlaps with the dark area of the second image and the dark area of the first image at least partially overlaps with the light area of the second image. However, these features are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art to design the first and second image have the specific arrangements to achieve desired image pattern.
With regard to claim 8, the first pattern area (31) and/or the second pattern area (32) may be regarded as comprising a plurality of sub-areas wherein a sub-area represents a contiguous subset of the hologram pixels of the corresponding hologram.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the US patent application publication by Onural (US 2016/0161914 A1).
The display engine taught by Li as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Li reference does not teach explicitly that the display engine is arranged to change a characteristic of at least one of the first pattern area and the second pattern area when both pattern areas are displayed on the display device. Onural in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display wherein the pattern displayed on the spatial light modulator (3, Figure 1) may be controlled by a computer (6). This means that via computer one skilled in the art may change a characteristic of at least one of the first pattern area and the second pattern area on the spatial light modulator such as change the size of the pattern area for the benefit of controlling the image pattern to be projected.
With regard to claims 11-13, Onural teaches that the holograms input to the spatial light modulator may comprise video rate sequence of the holograms, (please see the abstract). It is implicitly true that for each input hologram, a corresponding pattern area (such as 31 or 32) that comprises the input hologram (301+303 or 302+304) and a corresponding lens area (305 or 306) of the lens function having optical power is displayed on the spatial light modulator. With regard to claim 12, the features are considered to be process-by-product limitations that are not given patentable weight since it does not differentiate the final product from prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)). Nevertheless, Li in light of Onural teach that each hologram may be displayed either in succession within the video rate sequence, alternatively or simultaneously. With regard to claim 13, Li teaches that the display engine is arranged to display an input hologram and it corresponding lens area on pixels of the display device, such as the spatial light modulator (3)), using a plurality of different pattern arranges. The feature concerning “before displaying a pattern area comprising a next hologram within the video-rate sequence of input hologram” is considered to be intermediate steps and product-by-process limitations that are not given patentable weight since it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Claim(s) 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Li (US 2018/0314065 A1).
Claim 15 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Li teaches a projection display device that implicitly includes a method for projecting a first image onto a first image plane (at 11 and S1, Figure 1) and a second image onto a second image plane (at 12 and S2) at substantially the same time with a display device having display pixels, wherein the method comprises (a) displaying, that implicitly or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to determine, a first hologram (301+303, Figure 2) of the first image, (b) displaying, that implicitly or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to determine, a first lens area (305).
The first lens area (305) comprises values of the first lens function at the display pixels of the display device on which a first pattern area is to be displayed, (please see Figure 2), and wherein the first lens function is defined to implement a first optical power corresponds to the value of the first lens function, (with regard to the amendment). In response to amendment concerning “first optical power across all of the pixels of the display device”, this reference does not teach explicitly that the optical power of the first lens function of the first lens area is across all of the pixels of the display device. However, such feature is also not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed, for the reasons of rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, set forth above. Furthermore, this feature will not enable the feature “first image and second image are projected different distances from the pattern” claimed in the claims, which would make the engine not operable and not enable. This phrase therefore cannot be examined further. Li teaches that the first optical power is across all of the pixels of the display device corresponding to the first pattern (301+303) in order to project the first image to the first image plane (11, Figures 1 and 2). The first optical power is not intended to be across the pixels of the display device corresponding to the second pattern (302+304) the same way as the instant application as shown in Figure 4.
Li teaches that the method further comprises the step of (c) displaying, that implicitly or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to determine, a second hologram (302+304, Figure 2) of the second image, (d) displaying, that implicitly or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to determine, a second lens area (306).
The second lens area (306) comprises values of the second lens function at the display pixels of the display device on which a second pattern area is to be displayed, (please see Figure 2), and wherein the second lens function is defined to implement a second optical power corresponds to the value of the second lens function, (with regard to the amendment). In response to amendment concerning “second optical power across all of the pixels of the display device”, this reference does not teach explicitly that the optical power of the second lens function of the second lens area is across all of the pixels of the display device. However, such feature is also not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed, for the reasons of rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, set forth above. Furthermore, this feature will not enable the feature “first image and second image are projected different distances from the pattern” claimed in the claims, which would make the engine not operable and not enable. This phrase therefore cannot be examined further. Li teaches that the second optical power is across all of the pixels of the display device corresponding to the first pattern (302+304) in order to project the first image to the second image plane (12, Figures 1 and 2). The second optical power is not intended to be across the pixels of the display device corresponding to the first pattern (301+303) the same way as the instant application as shown in Figure 4.
Li teaches that the first optical power and the second optical power are different, and specifically only because the first optical power is only across the pixels of the first pattern area and the second optical power only across the pixels of the second pattern area, such that the first image and the second image are projected different distances from a pattern when the pattern is illuminated, (please see paragraph [0043]).
The method further comprises (e) displaying simultaneously on the display device both a first pattern area (31) comprising a summed or superimposed representation of the first hologram (301+303) and the first lens area (305), wherein the sub-portion of the first lens function comprises the first lens values correlated to the first pattern area, (please see Figure 2), and a second pattern area (32) comprising a summed or superimposed representation of the second hologram (304+302) and the second lens area (306) wherein the sub-portion of the second lens function comprises the second lens values correlated to the second pattern area.
Li teaches that method function comprises the step of (f) illuminating the display device, (please see Figure 1).
Li teaches that the first pattern area (31, Figure 1) and the second pattern area (32) are each occupied a sub-region of the display device or the phase spatial light modulator (3) which means that the first pattern area and the second pattern area occupies fewer than all display pixels of the display device (3). The first pattern area and the second pattern area do not overlap one another.
With regard to claim 17, Li teaches that the first lens area is comprised within a plurality of lens areas of the first lens function where each lens area comprises an arc, (305, Figure 2) wherein each of the arcs has a first common center. The plurality of lens areas of the first lens function is implicitly determined.
With regard to claim 18, the first common center of the first lens is located one a projection axis of the display device to create the image at the location (11). The first image is formed within a first holographic replay field on the first image plane wherein an axis defined between the first common center and the first image plane center intersects a center of the first holographic replay field.
With regard to claim 19, Li teaches that the second lens area is comprised within a plurality of lens areas of the second lens function where each lens area comprises an arc, (306, Figure 2) wherein each of the arcs has a second common center. The plurality of lens areas of the second lens function is implicitly determined.
With regard to claim 20, the second common center of the second lens is located one a projection axis of the display device to create the image at the location (12). The second image is formed within a second holographic replay field on the second image plane wherein an axis defined between the second common center and the second image plane center intersects a center of the second holographic replay field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected under the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features of the claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights