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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aharoni et al. (US 5,422,746) in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 5,475,512); further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2012/071387).
Regarding claim 1, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses a method for fabricating a holographic optical element (HOE) for an HUD, the method comprising:
a point light source (60; figure 12);
measuring an aberration (figure 2; see at least column 5, lines 45-65 and electromagnetic energy sensitive media; see at least column 2, lines 44-68);
recording, on a master HOE, a phase distribution corresponding to the measured aberration (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65);
reproducing, by the master HOE, an aberrated wavefront of the optical system, on a display plane on which the image of the display device is expressed (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41); and
causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (the aspherical object beam .PHI..sub.o and the aspherical reference beam .PHI..sub.r then create an interference pattern which results in the formation of a grating pattern in the holographic media of the final hologram H.sup.f.; see at least column 6, lines 30-41),
wherein the HOE is configured to compensate for the aberration caused by the optical system using the recorded interference pattern without requiring a separate detector or external aberration measurement system (the aspherical object beam .PHI..sub.o and the aspherical reference beam .PHI..sub.r then create an interference pattern which results in the formation of a grating pattern in the holographic media of the final hologram H.sup.f.; see at least column 6, lines 30-41).
Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding a guide star hologram and a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
Nakazawa et al. (figures 1-5) teaches positioning a point source at a center of a display device plane where a display device is to be positioned (66; see at least column 9, lines 40-50); passing the point source through an optical system for projecting an image of the display device to generate an aberrated wavefront (display device 65, lens system 64, and hologram 69); wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration occurring as the point source positioned at the center of the display device plane passes through the optical system (see at least column 7, lines 5-20); a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (see at least column 7, lines 5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Aharoni et al. in order to prevent aberration such as blurring and reduce the size the frontage of the dashboard. Therefore, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
In addition, Kim et al. (figures 1-5) teaches measuring an aberration of the optical system by using a guide star hologram having the aberrated wavefront recorded thereon (see at least page 5, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring method as taught by Kim et al. in order to provide real-time profiles of aberration.
Regarding claim 2, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration occurring when a point source at a center of the display device passes through the optical system (figure 2; see at least column 5, lines 45-65 and electromagnetic energy sensitive media; see at least column 2, lines 44-68).
Regarding claim 9, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches wherein the HOE is configured to reflect the aberrated wavefront generated by the optical system, and to generate a spherical wave toward an HUD image plane (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 10, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses a display (electromagnetic energy sensitive media; see at least column 2, lines 44-68) comprising:
a display device configured to express an image (electromagnetic energy sensitive media; see at least column 2, lines 44-68);
an optical system configured to project an image of the display device; and
a holographic optical element (HOE) configured to focus the image of the display device projected by the optical system on an image plane at a long distance (figure 2),
wherein the HOE comprises a multi-layer holographic structure fabricated by;
a point light source (60; figure 12);
measuring an aberration of the optical system (figure 2; see at least column 5, lines 45-65),
recording, on a master HOE, a phase distribution corresponding to the measured aberration (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65),
reproducing an aberrated wavefront from the master HOE onto on a display plane on which the image of the display device is expressed (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41), and
causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted an HUD image plane on which the image of the display device is focused to interfere with each other (the aspherical object beam .PHI..sub.o and the aspherical reference beam .PHI..sub.r then create an interference pattern which results in the formation of a grating pattern in the holographic media of the final hologram H.sup.f.; see at least column 6, lines 30-41), and
recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65), and
wherein the HOE is configured to compensate for the aberration caused by the optical system usingthe recorded resulting interference pattern without requiring a separate detector or external aberration measurement system (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65).
Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding a guide star hologram and a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
Nakazawa et al. (figures 1-5) teaches positioning a point source at a center of a display device plane where a display device is to be positioned (66; see at least column 9, lines 40-50); passing the point source through an optical system for projecting an image of the display device to generate an aberrated wavefront (display device 65, lens system 64, and hologram 69); wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration occurring as the point source positioned at the center of the display device plane passes through the optical system (see at least column 7, lines 5-20); a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (see at least column 7, lines 5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Aharoni et al. in order to prevent aberration such as blurring and reduce the size the frontage of the dashboard. Therefore, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
In addition, Kim et al. (figures 1-5) teaches measuring an aberration of the optical system by using a guide star hologram having the aberrated wavefront recorded thereon (see at least page 5, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring method as taught by Kim et al. in order to provide real-time profiles of aberration.
Regarding claim 11, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses the method comprising the steps of:
a point light source (60; figure 12);
measuring an aberration of the optical system (figure 2; see at least column 5, lines 45-65),
reproducing, by a master HOE, an aberrated wavefront of an optical system on a display plane on which an image of a display device is expressed, an aberration caused by the optical system for projecting the image of the display device being recorded on the master HOE (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41); and
causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (the aspherical object beam .PHI..sub.o and the aspherical reference beam .PHI..sub.r then create an interference pattern which results in the formation of a grating pattern in the holographic media of the final hologram H.sup.f.; see at least column 6, lines 30-41),
wherein the HOE is configured to compensate for the aberration caused by the optical system using the recorded interference pattern without requiring a separate detector or external aberration measurement system (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65).
Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding a guide star hologram and a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
Nakazawa et al. (figures 1-5) teaches positioning a point source at a center of a display device plane where a display device is to be positioned (66; see at least column 9, lines 40-50); passing the point source through an optical system for projecting an image of the display device to generate an aberrated wavefront (display device 65, lens system 64, and hologram 69); wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration occurring as the point source positioned at the center of the display device plane passes through the optical system (see at least column 7, lines 5-20); a holographic optical element for an HUD and causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE (see at least column 7, lines 5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Aharoni et al. in order to prevent aberration such as blurring and reduce the size the frontage of the dashboard. Therefore, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches causing the reproduced aberrated wavefront and a spherical wave emitted from an HUD image plane to interfere with each other, and recording a resulting interference pattern directly on the HOE.
In addition, Kim et al. (figures 1-5) teaches measuring an aberration of the optical system by using a guide star hologram having the aberrated wavefront recorded thereon (see at least page 5, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring method as taught by Kim et al. in order to provide real-time profiles of aberration.
Regarding claim 12, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses an HOE fabrication system, the system comprising:
a point light source (60; figure 12);
a master holographic optical element (HOE) configured to record an aberration of the optical system, wherein a phase distribution corresponding to the measured aberration is recorded on the master HOE caused by an optical system for projecting an image of a display device is recorded (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65); and
another HOE configured to cause the aberrated wavefront reproduced by the master HOE on a display plane on which the image of the display device is expressed and a spherical wave emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused, to interfere with each other, and to record a resulting interference pattern directly on the other HOE by recording the aberrated wavefront being reproduced by the master HOE which is reproduced on a display plane on which the image of the display device is expressed, the spherical wave being emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41),
wherein the other HOE is configured to compensate for the aberration caused by the optical system using the recorded interference pattern without requiring a separate detector or external aberration measurement (two independent holograms, H.sup.oo and H.sup.rr, are recorded utilizing object beams and reference beams having spherical wavefronts; see at least column 5, lines 45-65).
Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding a guide star hologram and a point light source.
Nakazawa et al. (figures 1-5) teaches a point source positioned at a center of a display device plane where a display device is to be positioned, the point source being configured to pass through an optical system for projecting an image of the display device to generate an aberrated wavefront (light source 66, display device 65, lens system 64, and hologram 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Aharoni et al. in order to prevent aberration such as blurring and reduce the size the frontage of the dashboard.
In addition, Kim et al. (figures 1-5) teaches the aberration being measured by using a guide star hologram having the aberrated wavefront recorded thereon (see at least page 5, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring method as taught by Kim et al. in order to provide real-time profiles of aberration.
Regarding claim 13, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches wherein the HOE is configured to reflect the aberrated wavefront generated by the optical system, and to generate a spherical wave toward an HUD image plane (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 14, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches wherein the HOE is configured to reflect the aberrated wavefront generated by the optical system, and to generate a spherical wave toward an HUD image plane (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 15, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) as modified by Nakazawa et al. teaches wherein the HOE is configured to reflect the aberrated wavefront generated by the optical system, and to generate a spherical wave toward an HUD image plane (reconstruction beam .PHI..sub.c.sup.r illuminates interim hologram H.sub.r.sup.int to create reference beam .PHI..sub.r having an aspherical wavefront at wavelength .lambda..sub.o; see at least column 6, lines 30-41).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aharoni et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. and Kim et al.; further in view of Knittel (EP 1553574).
Regarding claim 3, Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding performing a first generation of generating a collimated beam. Regarding claim 3, Knittel (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the step of measuring comprises: performing a first generation of generating a collimated beam (2); performing a second generation of generating an aberrated wavefront of the optical system by using the generated collimated beam (see at least page 4; second paragraph); performing a third generation of generating a spherical wave which propagates on the display plane by using the collimated beam (24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Knittel in order to simplify the manufacturing steps and determine the positions of the partial light beams in a very convenient way and at low cost. Therefore, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al., Kim et al. and Knittel teaches causing the generated aberrated wavefront and the generated spherical wave to interfere with the generated collimated beam, and recording the wavefront; and measuring the aberration on the display plane from the recorded wavefront.
Regarding claim 4, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al., Kim et al. and Knittel teaches wherein the performing the second generation comprises generating the aberrated wavefront by focusing the generated collimated beam on a center of a display device plane where the display device is to be positioned, and then allowing the collimated beam to pass through the optical system.
Regarding claim 5, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al., Kim et al. and Knittel teaches wherein the performing the third generation step comprises generating the spherical wave by focusing the collimated beam on a center of the display plane with a lens (3-6).
Regarding claim 6, Aharoni et al. as modified by Nakazawa et al., Kim et al. and Knittel teaches wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration on the display plane by obtaining only a complex field which is effective in an angular spectrum domain from an image picked-up wavefront, and computatively propagating to the display plane (A-C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aharoni et al. in view of Nakazawa et al., Kim et al.; further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2015/108272; hereinafter Kim’272).
Regarding claim 7, Aharoni et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Aharoni et al. is silent regarding recording the aberration measured by a holographic wavefront printer on the master HOE. Kim’272 (figures 1-4) teaches recording the aberration measured by a holographic wavefront printer on the master HOE (see at least abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HOE as taught by Kim et al. in order to record a color hologram on a holographic recording medium, and a more natural and clear color holographic recording can be performed according to a degree of fragmentation.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights