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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 34-41 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1,2,4-5,24,26-33 will be examined. Claims 3,6-23,25,42-102 were canceled previously. Drawings The drawings with 17 Sheets of Figs. 1A-8F received on 8/17/2022 are acknowledged and accepted. The Replacement drawings with 17 Sheets of Figs. 1A-8F received on 8/17/2022 are acknowledged and accepted. The application now has drawings with 17 sheets of Figs. 1A-8F. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim s 1 ,5, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6, of U.S. Patent No. 11474370 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Current #17889731 US Patent No 11474370 (#17/280,777) Claim 1: A holographic display system, comprising: a first display, comprising a light field display configured to project light along a set of projected light paths to form at least a first holographic surface having a first projected depth profile relative to a display screen plane; and a relay system positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths from the light field display and relay the received light along a set of relayed light paths such that points on the first holographic surface are relayed to relayed locations thereby forming a first relayed holographic surface having a first relayed depth profile relative to a virtual screen plane, the first relayed depth profile being different from the first projected depth profile; wherein the light field display comprises a controller configured to receive instructions for accounting for the difference between the first projected depth profile and the first relayed depth profile by operating the light field display to output projected light such that the first relayed depth profile of the first relayed holographic object is the depth profile intended for a viewer. Claim 5: wherein the set of projected light paths form a second holographic surface having a second projected depth profile relative to the display screen plane, and points on the second holographic surface are relayed by the relay system to relayed locations that form a second relayed holographic surface having a second relayed depth profile relative to the virtual screen plane. Claim 1 : A holographic display system, comprising:a first display, comprising a light field display configured to project light along a set of projected light paths to form at least a first holographic surface, the set of projected light paths determined according to a first four-dimensional (4D) function defined by the light field display, such that each projected light path has a set of positional coordinates and angular coordinates in a first 4D coordinate system defined with respect to a display screen plane; and a relay system positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths from the light field display and relay the received light along a set of relayed light paths such that points on the first holographic surface are relayed to relayed locations thereby forming a first relayed holographic surface, the set of relayed light paths having been determined according to a second 4D function defined by the relay system, such that each relayed light path has a set of positional coordinates and angular coordinates in a second 4D coordinate system defined with respect to a virtual screen plane; wherein the light field display comprises a controller configured to receive instructions for accounting for the second 4D function by operating the light field display to output projected light according to the first 4D function such that the positional coordinates and angular coordinates in the second 4D coordinate system for each of the set of relayed light paths allow the relayed holographic surface to be presented to a viewer as intended; wherein the relay system comprises a beam splitter and a concave mirror, the beam splitter positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths and reflect a first portion of the received light towards the concave mirror along a set of reflected light paths; wherein the concave mirror and the beam splitter are aligned such that light reflected from the beam splitter towards the concave mirror is reflected and focused from the concave mirror along the set of relayed light paths that extend along a return direction substantially opposite to the set of reflected light paths; and wherein the set of projected light paths form a second holographic surface having a second projected depth profile relative to the display screen plane, and points on the second holographic surface are relayed by the relay system to relayed locations that form a second relayed holographic surface having a second relayed depth profile relative to the virtual screen plane Claim 1: A holographic display system, comprising: a first display, comprising a light field display configured to project light along a set of projected light paths to form at least a first holographic surface having a first projected depth profile relative to a display screen plane; and a relay system positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths from the light field display and relay the received light along a set of relayed light paths such that points on the first holographic surface are relayed to relayed locations thereby forming a first relayed holographic surface having a first relayed depth profile relative to a virtual screen plane, the first relayed depth profile being different from the first projected depth profile; wherein the light field display comprises a controller configured to receive instructions for accounting for the difference between the first projected depth profile and the first relayed depth profile by operating the light field display to output projected light such that the first relayed depth profile of the first relayed holographic object is the depth profile intended for a viewer. Claim 5: wherein the set of projected light paths form a second holographic surface having a second projected depth profile relative to the display screen plane, and points on the second holographic surface are relayed by the relay system to relayed locations that form a second relayed holographic surface having a second relayed depth profile relative to the virtual screen plane. Claim 6 : A holographic display system, comprising: a first display, comprising a light field display configured to project light along a set of pro j ected light paths to form at least a first holographic surface, the set of projected light paths determined according to a first four-dimensional (4D) function defined by the light field display, such that each proj ected light path has a set of positional coordinates and angular coordinates in a first 4D coordinate system defined with respect to a display screen plane; and a relay system positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths from the light field display and relay the received light along a set of relayed light paths such that points on the first holographic surface are relayed to relayed locations thereby forming a first relayed holographic surface, the set of relayed light paths having been determined according to a second 4D function defined by the relay system, such that each relayed light path has a set of positional coordinates and angular coordinates in a second 4D coordinate system defined with respect to a virtual screen plane; wherein the light field display comprises a controller configured to receive instructions for accounting for the second 4D function by operating the light field display to output projected light according to the first 4D function such that the positional coordinates and angular coordinates in the second 4D coordinate system for each of the set of relayed light paths allow the relayed holographic surface to be presented to a viewer as intended; wherein the relay system comprises a beam splitter and a concave mirror, the beam splitter positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths and reflect a first portion of the received light towards the concave mirror along a set of reflected light paths; wherein the concave mirror and the beam splitter are aligned such that light reflected from the beam splitter towards the concave mirror is reflected and focused from the concave mirror along the set of relayed light paths that extend along a return direction substantially opposite to the set of reflected light paths; wherein the set of projected light paths form a second holographic surface having a second projected depth profile relative to the display screen plane, and points on the second holographic surface are relayed by the relay system to relayed locations that form a second relayed holographic surface having a second relayed depth profile relative to the virtual screen plane; and wherein the first 4D function exchanges intensity and color information between light paths that have the same positional coordinates in the first 4D coordinate system. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 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 ,2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karafin et al (WO 2018/014046 A1 , of record ) in view of Damm et al (US 2017/0102671 A1 , of record ) . The applied reference ( Karafin et al (WO 2018/014046 A1) has a common Applicant and Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). (Combined Karafin -Damm- Loevsky teach the limitations of the claims). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Regarding Claim 1 , Karafin teaches (fig 6) a holographic display system (light field and holographic display, p43, lines 1-3) , comprising: a first display (energy surface 600, para 78) , comprising a light field display (light field energy surface in 4D image space, para 78 ) configured to project light along a set of projected light paths to form at least a first holographic surface (where the rays converge in space 630, p ara 78 , there is a holographic image formed, even though it is not illustrated in the figure) having a first projected depth profile (4D plenoptic function, para 76-78 ) relative to a display screen plane; and a relay system (within the seamless energy surface, relay components such as beam splitters, polarization elements, para 86 ) positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths from the light field display (light field energy surface in 4D image space, para 78 ) and relay the received light along a set of relayed light paths such that points on the first holographic surface (where the rays converge in space 630, p ara 78 , there is a holographic image formed, even though it is not illustrated in the figure) are relayed to relayed locations thereby forming a first relayed holographic surface having a first relayed depth profile relative to a virtual screen plane . However, Karafin does not teach the first relayed depth profile being different from the first projected depth profile; wherein the light field display comprises a controller configured to receive instructions for accounting for the difference between the first projected depth profile and the first relayed depth profile by operating the light field display to output projected light such that the first relayed depth profile of the first relayed holographic object is the depth profile intended for a viewer. Karafin and Damm are related as set of relayed light paths. Damm teaches (fig 9,14) a holographic display (holographic light field imaging device, para 83) comprising a relay system (relay system 1404, para 86) the first relayed depth profile being different from the first projected depth profile (projective transformation can happen and an entropic image 1420 may be formed, magnification or minification is performed, para 86, according to the current specification, magnification or minification happens as a result of a second 4D plenoptic function, fig 5C, pg 27, lines 6-12) ; wherein the light field display (holographic light field imaging device, p83, lines 1-3) comprises a controller (reconstruction algorithm 1410, p86, lines 1-10, an algorithm indicates there is a controller which receives instructions) configured to receive instructions (encoding represented by optics model 1418 which can be used in reconstruction, p86, lines 1-20, fig 14) for accounting for the second 4D function (projective transformation can happen and an entropic image 1420 may be formed, p86, lines 1-20, magnification or minification is performed, p86, lines 13-18, according to the current specification, magnification or minification happens as a result of a second 4D plenoptic function, fig 5C, pg 27, lines 6-12) by operating the light field display (holographic light field imaging device, p83, lines 1-3) to output projected light (incident light field, fig 14, p86, lines 1-10, p81, lines 1-9) such that the first relayed depth profile (reconstructed light field 1458, p86, lines 20-30) of the first relayed holographic object is the depth profile intended for a viewer (light field 1458 is identical to original incident field, para 86, which is intended light field) (inversion can incorporate prior information, para 51, alter uncompressed light field representation until it matches coded light field well, para 53). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light field display of Karafin to include the controller and the relayed and projected depth profiles of Damm for the purpose of utilizing a technique for new and improved holographic light field displays, p ara 6, lines 1-5). Regarding Claim 2, Karafin -Damm teaches the holographic display system of claim 1, wherein the light field display (light field energy surface in 4D image space, para 78, Karafin ) is configured to project the first holographic surface (where the rays converge in space 630, p ara 78 , there is a holographic image formed, even though it is not illustrated in the figure) as an in-screen holographic surface or an off-screen holographic surface (holographic image at 630 is an off-screen surface) . Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Karafin et al (WO 2018/014046 A1, of record) in view of Damm et al (US 2017/0102671 A1, of record) and further in view of Frayne et al (US 2018/0188550 A1). Regarding Claim 2 4 , Karafin -Damm teaches the holographic display system of claim 1 . However, Karafin -Damm do not teach wherein the virtual screen plane is oriented at a non-parallel or a perpendicular angle relative to the display screen plane of the light field display. Karafin -Damm and Frayne are related as displays . Frayne teaches (fig 1- 4 ) wherein the virtual screen plane (virtual plane is the plane of convergence, fig 4, para 42) where is oriented at a non-parallel or a perpendicular angle (perpendicular angle as in fig 1-3) relative to the display screen plane of the light field display (light source 110, para 41, “ The light source 110 preferably generates light (i.e., a light output) based on image data transmitted to or generated by the display 100 ”, para 40) . Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the virtual screen plane of Karafin -Damm to include the virtual screen plane oriented at a non-parallel or a perpendicular angle relative to the display screen plane of Frayne for the purpose of using new and useful advanced displays for a shared experience (para 5). Claims 26 ,27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Karafin et al (WO 2018/014046 A1, of record) in view of Damm et al (US 2017/0102671 A1, of record) and further in view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2017107165A). Regarding Claim 2 6 , Karafin -Damm teaches the holographic display system of claim 1 . However, Karafin -Damm do not teach wherein the relay system comprises a transmissive reflector positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths and direct the received light along the set of relayed light paths. Karafin -Damm and Yamamoto are related as displays . Yamamoto teaches (fig 1 ) wherein the relay system comprises a transmissive reflector ( first retroreflect ive portion 2 , para 31 ) positioned to receive light along the set of projected light paths (light from display D1 , para 31 ) and direct the received light along the set of relayed light paths (“ The material of the first retroreflective portion 2A is not particularly limited as long as it is capable of transmitting the first light L1 and retroreflecting light incident on the first retroreflective portion 2A from the first light branching portion 4 side (i.e., the side opposite the emission direction E1 ”, para 36) Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relay system of Karafin -Damm to include a transmissive reflector of Yamamoto for the purpose of using advanced display technology for improved viewing such as observation from a wider angle (para 8). Regarding Claim 2 7 , Karafin -Damm - Yamamoto teaches the holographic display system of claim 26 . However, Karafin -Damm do not teach wherein the transmissive reflector internally reflects a portion of the received light among a plurality of internal reflective surfaces of the transmissive reflector and outputs light along the set of relayed light paths towards the virtual screen plane in a first direction. Karafin -Damm and Yamamoto are related as displays. Yamamoto teaches (fig 1-3) wherein the transmissive reflector ( first retroreflective portion 2, para 31 ) internally reflects a portion of the received light among a plurality of internal reflective surfaces of the transmissive reflector ( “ first retroreflective portion 2A include s retroreflective structures 3A and 3B having a plurality of unit structures 10 each having at least one reflective surface 12 ” ) and outputs light along the set of relayed light paths (as in fig 1 ) towards the virtual screen plane (virtual plane is the plane of where aerial image I is formed, para 41 ) in a first direction (direction towards aerial image I ) . Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relay system of Karafin -Damm to include a transmissive reflector with a plurality of internal reflective surfaces of Yamamoto for the purpose of using advanced display technology for improved viewing such as observation from a wider angle (para 8). Examiner’s Note With respect to claim 5 , Examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, this claim is not allowable pursuant to the pending Double Patenting Rejection. Regarding Claim 5 , the prior art does not teach or suggest an optical device including the specific arrangement for “ wherein the set of projected light paths form a second holographic surface having a second projected depth profile relative to the display screen plane, and points on the second holographic surface are relayed by the relay system to relayed locations that form a second relayed holographic surface having a second relayed depth profile relative to the virtual screen plane ” , as set forth in the claimed combination(s). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 4 , 28-33, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4 is allowable for at least the reason: “ the instruction received by the controller comprises a reversal of the polarity of the angular coordinates of the first holographic surfaces in the 4D coordinate system. ” Claim 28 is allowable for at least the reason “ wherein the transmissive reflector internally reflects a first portion of the received light among a plurality of internal reflective surfaces of the transmissive reflector and output the first portion of the received light along the set of relayed light paths towards the virtual screen plane in a first direction, and wherein an external surface of the transmissive reflector reflects a second portion of the received light along a set of reflected light paths in a second direction opposite the first direction. ” Claims 29-33 are dependent on claim 28 and allowable for at least the same reason as claim 28. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3270 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JYOTSNA V DABBI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/7/2026