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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitations as amended in claims 1-7 and 9-15. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Takenobu et al. (figures 1-5) teaches 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 paragraphs 0021 and 0028). 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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, 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the measuring comprises measuring the aberration occurring when a point source at a center of the display device passes through the optical system” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the phrase is no longer valid if a point source at a center of the display device does not pass through the optical system. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Takenobu et al. (JP 05-178120).
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:
measuring an aberration (figure 2; see at least column 5, lines 45-65) which is caused by an optical system for projecting an image of a display device (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 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. Takenobu et al. (figures 1-5) teaches 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 paragraphs 0021 and 0028). 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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.
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 Takenobu 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;
measuring an aberration which is caused by 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
interfering the reproduced aberrated wavefront with a spherical wave emitted from a predetermined image plane (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 resultinq 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 holographic optical element for an HUD and interfering the reproduced aberrated wavefront with a spherical wave emitted from a predetermined HUD image plane. Takenobu et al. (figures 1-5) teaches a holographic optical element for an HUD and interfering the reproduced aberrated wavefront with a spherical wave emitted from a predetermined HUD image plane (see at least paragraphs 0021 and 0028). 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu et al. teaches interfering the reproduced aberrated wavefront with a spherical wave emitted from a predetermined HUD image plane.
Regarding claim 11, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses the method comprising the steps of:
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).
Regarding claim 12, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) discloses an HOE fabrication system, the system comprising:
a master holographic optical element (HOE) on which an aberration 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
a HOE configured to cause an aberrated wavefront of the optical system and a spherical wave to interfere with each other, and to record a resulting interference pattern directly on the 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 display 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 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 an HOE fabrication system for an HUD and the spherical wave being emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused. Takenobu et al. (figures 1-5) teaches an HOE fabrication system for an HUD and the spherical wave being emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused (see at least paragraphs 0021 and 0028). 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu et al. teaches the spherical wave being emitted from a head up display (HUD) image plane on which the image of the display device is focused.
Regarding claim 13, Aharoni et al. (figures 2-8B) as modified by Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu 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 Takenobu et al.; further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2015/108272).
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 et al. (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
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 571-272-97911. 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