CTFR 17/895,888 CTFR 100845 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments/Amendment Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on March 9, 2026 have been fully considered. Objections to claims 4, and 12 are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-3, 7-13 are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeto n et al. (US 20230060564 A1, hereinafter “Smeeton”) in view of Mohan et al. (US 20200364876 A1, hereinafter “Mohan”). Regard ing claim 1 , Smeeton teaches: A device (Smeeton: ¶62, “. . . light engine (e.g., image projector such as holographic projector ) arranged to reconstruct an image from a hologram. . .”), comprising : At least one processor (Smeeton: ¶62, “. . . image processor . . .”; Smeeton: ¶207, . . . one or more processors . . .) configured to : partition (Smeeton: ¶169, “. . .divide. . .”) a source image including image components (Smeeton: ¶21, “. . . receiving an image for display. . .”; NOTE: image data for image 1552) into sub-images (Smeeton: ¶169, “. . . V1 to V8 . . .”; also see Smeeton: Fig. 9A), each sub-image of the sub-images each including a respective image component of the image components (Smeeton: ¶169, “FIG. 9A shows an image 1552 for projection comprising eight image areas/components , V1 to V8. FIG. 9A shows eight image components . . .”; NOTE: V1-V8 comprise respective image component); and process each sub-image separately (Smeeton: ¶30, “ Calculation of the hologram may comprise calculating a plurality of sub-holograms . Each sub-hologram may correspond to a different region of the image . . .”) to produce a target image (Smeeton: ¶169, “. . . sub-holograms . . .”) to be projected (Smeeton: ¶169, “. . .for projection. . .”) for each sub-image of the sub-images (Smeeton: ¶169 “. . . first to eighth sub-holograms or components, H1 to H8 , corresponding to the first to eighth image components/areas , V1 to V8. . .”; NOTE: Because the sub-images V1-V8 are processed to calculate corresponding H1-H8 sub-holograms to be projected, therefore sub-image V1. . . V8 is processed separately to produce target images H1 . . . H8 to be projected.) (Smeeton: ¶169, “FIG. 9A shows an image 1552 for projection comprising eight image areas/components, V1 to V8 . FIG. 9A shows eight image components by way of example only and the image 1552 may be divided into any number of components. FIG. 9A also shows the encoded light pattern 1554 (i.e., hologram) that can reconstruct the image 1552—e.g., when transformed by the lens of a suitable viewing system. The encoded light pattern 1554 comprises first to eighth sub-holograms or components, H1 to H8 , corresponding to the first to eighth image components/areas, V1 to V8 .”); one or more light sources coupled to the at least one processor (Smeeton: ¶100, “. . . light source 100 . . . disposed to illuminate the SLM 140 via a collimating lens 111 ”), the one or more light sources configured to project an incident light (Smeeton: ¶100, “. . .The collimating lens causes a generally planar wavefront of light to be incident on the SLM ); and a phase projection-based display device (Smeeton: ¶11, “In embodiments , the display device is a spatial light modulator such as liquid crystal on silicon (“LCOS”) spatial light modulator (SLM). . .”; Smeeton: ¶111, “. . . Each phase value is quantised in accordance with the phase-levels which may be represented on the pixels of the spatial light modulator which will be used to “display” the phase-only hologram . For example, if each pixel of the spatial light modulator provides 256 different phase levels, each phase value of the hologram is quantised into one phase level of the 256 possible phase levels. . .”) coupled to the at least one processor (NOTE: Smeeton’s system calculates hologram of the image which requires the processor to be coupled to the spatial light modulator (SLM 140)) and optically coupled to the one or more light sources (NOTE: Smeeton: Fig. 1 shows that the SLM 140 is optically coupled to the light source 110), the phase projection-display device configure to modulate (Smeeton: ¶171, “. . . The LCOS 1502 is arranged to display a modulation pattern . . .”), based on the target image of each sub-image, the incident light to separately project the sub-images (Smeeton: ¶169, “FIG. 9A shows an image 1552 for projection comprising eight image areas/components, V1 to V8. FIG. 9A shows eight image components by way of example only and the image 1552 may be divided into any number of components. FIG. 9A also shows the encoded light pattern 1554 (i.e., hologram) that can reconstruct the image 1552 —e.g., when transformed by the lens of a suitable viewing system. The encoded light pattern 1554 comprises first to eighth sub-holograms or components, H1 to H8, corresponding to the first to eighth image components/areas , V1 to V8. FIG. 9A further shows how a hologram calculated in accordance with this disclosure effectively decomposes the image content by angle. . .”) (NOTE: The target images (sub-holograms H1-H8) corresponds to the sub-images (image areas/components) and therefore are projected separately.). However, Smeeton projects H1 to H8 sub-holograms based on sub-images V1 to V8 simultaneously and fails to teach: to separately and time-sequentially project the sub-images. The analogous art Mohan teaches: to separately and time-sequentially project the sub-images (Mohan: ¶4, “ display color data by sequentially projecting sub-images in different . . . in rapid succession . Projecting color sub-images at sufficiently high rates (e.g., 60 Hz, 120 Hz, etc. ) may deliver a smooth color MR scenario in a user's mind”; ¶190; “. . . image display systems (e.g., VR system, AR system, MR system, etc.) use a plurality of volume phase holograms, surface-relief holograms, or light guiding optical element s that are embedded with depth plane information to generate images. . .”; ¶195, “. . . This type of paradigm can be repeated in rapid time sequential (e.g., at 360 Hz) fashion such that the user's eye and brain (e.g., visual cortex) perceives the input to be all part of the same image”;) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smeeton and Mohan to separately and time-sequentially project the sub-images, such that Smeeton’s H1 to H8 to be projected time-sequentially and separately as taught by Mohan. The reason for doing so such that image processing “is not required to be performed on the entire first image, but only on discrete portions of the first image, thereby saving time and computational resources” (Mohan: ¶238). Regarding claim 2 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , However, Smeeton fails to teach wherein each sub-image of the sub-images includes a number of pixels equal to the source image. It would have been an obvious design choice among a finite number of options (e.g. sub-image number of pixels is: less than, equal to, or more than the source image) to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the mentioned options and select which of the following yields the best display quality also considering processing resource usage. The reason for doing so is because selecting the option wherein each sub-image of the sub-images includes a number of pixels equal to the source image predictably ensures the resolution of the images are uniform and is one of the finite number of predictable set of options. Regarding claim 3 , depending on claim 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein the phase projection-based display device (Smeeton: SLM 140) is a phase light modulator (PLM) (Smeeton: ¶126, “. . .In some embodiments, the spatial light modulator is a reflective liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) spatial light modulator but the present disclosure is not restricted to this type of spatial light modulator. . .”; Smeeton: ¶129, “Each of the square electrodes 301 defines, together with the overlying region of the transparent electrode 307 and the intervening liquid crystal material, a controllable phase-modulating element 308 , often referred to as a pixel. The effective pixel area, or fill factor, is the percentage of the total pixel which is optically active, taking into account the space between pixels 301a. By control of the voltage applied to each electrode 301 with respect to the transparent electrode 307, the properties of the liquid crystal material of the respective phase modulating element may be varied, thereby to provide a variable delay to light incident thereon . The effect is to provide phase-only modulation to the wavefront, i.e., no amplitude effect occurs”; ¶NOTE: Smeeton’s system uses an LCOS SLM which is capable of displaying phase-only holograms, therefore Smeeton’s phase projection-based display device is also a phase light modulator; also see paragraph 0155, spatial light modulator 701 is a liquid crystal on silicon device arranged to modulate the phase of received light). Regarding claim 7 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1, However, Smeeton fails to teach wherein the sub-images have lower average picture levels (APLs) than the source image. It would have been an obvious design choice among a finite number of options (e.g. sub-images have: lower than, equal to, or more than the source image) to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the sub-images such that their APLs is lower than, or equal to, or more than the source image which achieves a desired results. The reason for doing so is because an image with a lower APL corresponds to an image with a lower brightness level, while an image with a higher APL corresponds to an image with a higher brightness level. Selecting a lower APL among the finite options, it would also have been obvious to a PHOSITA to try option that yields a predictable result and selecting desired results. Regarding claim 8 , depending on 7, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein the source image (Smeeton: image 1552) includes fewer than ten image components (Smeeton: ¶169, “FIG. 9A shows an image 1552 for projection comprising eight image areas/components , V1 to V8 . FIG. 9A shows eight image components ”). that are separated by dark pixels or a dark region in the source image (NOTE: in reference to Fig. 9A, image 1552’s image components V1-V8 are separated by dark pixels or a dark region) Regarding claim 9 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein the image components include data represented by text and/or graphics (NOTE: Smeeton Fig. 9A shows V1-V8 including image components represented by text (e.g. “35”, “mph” corresponding V5 and V6 respectively, or graphics (e.g. V1 displaying a left arrow, and v8 displaying a right arrow)). Regarding claim 10 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton further teaches: further comprising focusing optics optically coupled to the one or more light sources and the phase projection-based display device (Smeeton: Figure 1, collimating lens 111, and Fourier transform lens 120, the SLM 140 is the phase projection-based display device) (Smeeton: ¶100, “ A light source 110 , for example a laser or laser diode, is disposed to illuminate the SLM 140 via a collimating lens 111 . The collimating lens causes a generally planar wavefront of light to be incident on the SLM. In FIG. 1, the direction of the wavefront is off-normal (e.g., two or three degrees away from being truly orthogonal to the plane of the transparent layer). However, in other embodiments, the generally planar wavefront is provided at normal incidence and a beam splitter arrangement is used to separate the input and output optical paths. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the arrangement is such that light from the light source is reflected off a mirrored rear surface of the SLM and interacts with a light-modulating layer to form an exit wavefront 112. The exit wavefront 112 is applied to optics including a Fourier transform lens 120, having its focus at a screen 125. More specifically, the Fourier transform lens 120 receives a beam of modulated light from the SLM 140 and performs a frequency-space transformation to produce a holographic reconstruction at the screen 125”). Regarding claim 11 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein a first number of the sub-images is based on a second number of the image components in the source image (Smeeton: ¶169, “ FIG. 9A shows an image 1552 for projection comprising eight image areas/components, V1 to V8 . FIG. 9A shows eight image components by way of example only and the image 1552 may be divided into any number of components. FIG. 9A also shows the encoded light pattern 1554 (i.e., hologram) that can reconstruct the image 1552—e.g., when transformed by the lens of a suitable viewing system. The encoded light pattern 1554 comprises first to eighth sub-holograms or components, H1 to H8, corresponding to the first to eighth image components/areas, V1 to V8 . FIG. 9A further shows how a hologram calculated in accordance with this disclosure effectively decomposes the image content by angle. The hologram may therefore be characterised by the channeling of light that it performs. This is illustrated in FIG. 9B. Specifically, the hologram in accordance with this disclosure directs light into a plurality of discrete areas. The discrete areas are discs in the example shown but other shapes are envisaged. The size and shape of the optimum disc may, after propagation through the waveguide, be related to the size and shape of the entrance pupil of the viewing system. This channeling of light only occurs due to the specific method of determining the hologram disclosed herein”) (NOTE: Since the number of sub-holograms is 8 (H1-H8) corresponding to the number of image components of image 1552 which is 8 (V1-V8), and therefore the number of sub-images (partitioned areas V1-V8) is based on a second number of the image components in the source image). Regarding claim 12 , Smeeton teaches: A vehicle (Smeeton: ¶2, “. . .vehicle housing the head-up display. . .”) comprising: a projector device mounted in the vehicle (Smeeton: ¶2, “The present disclosure relates to image projection and a method of projecting an image. The present disclosure relates to image reconstruction and a method of reconstructing an image from a diffractive structure such as a hologram or kinoform. Embodiments relate to projecting an image through a pupil expander such as a waveguide pupil expander. The present disclosure also relates to a method of optimising the allocation of data processing resources such as hologram compute resources. Some embodiments relate to a light engine such as an image projector or holographic projector or picture generating unit . Some embodiments relate to a head-up display or a vehicle housing the head-up display ”; Smeeton: ¶201, “In some embodiments, the light source is a laser such as a laser diode. The holographic projection system of the present disclosure may be used to provide an improved head-up display. In some embodiments, there is provided a vehicle comprising the holographic projection system installed in the vehicle to provide a HUD . The vehicle may be an automotive vehicle such as a car, truck, van, lorry, motorcycle, train, airplane, boat, or ship”). (NOTE: the projector device of claim 12 correspond to the device claimed in claim 1 with same features, see the rejection of claim 1) wherein the phase projection-based display device is configured to project the sub-images on a projection surface on a front windshield of the vehicle (Smeeton: ¶152, “The present inventors have recognised that, at least in some applications, it is preferable for the virtual image distance—i.e., for the distance from the viewer to the virtual image—to be finite, as opposed to the virtual image being formed at infinity. In certain applications, there will be a preferred virtual image distance, at which it is desirable or necessary for the virtual image content to appear. For example, this can be the case in a head-up display , for example in an automotive setting , for example if virtual image content is to be superimposed onto real content that is being viewed by the viewer through a vehicle windscreen . For example, a desired virtual image distance may comprise the virtual image content being formed a few meters, for example 3 meters or 5 meters, in front of the viewer's vehicle or windscreen ”). The vehicle of claim 12 comprises a projector device with the same features of the device in claim 1, and therefore is rejected with the same reasons of obviousness as used above. Regarding claim 13 , depending on 12, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 12 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein the image components in the sub-images indicate information, and wherein the information include a road trajectory line, route information or conditions, vehicle information or conditions, messages, or alerts (Smeeton: ¶179, “In more detail, FIG. 11 shows a display area 1101 in which an image is displayed. For example, the display area 1101 may be a display area of display system, such as a head-up display. In accordance with this disclosure, the image changes (e.g., in time). The image may change in real-time—for example, at video rate. Each image may be one image frame of a sequence of image frames. Each image may comprise image content. Each image may comprise a plurality of distinct image elements. By way of example only, FIG. 11 shows an image comprising three image elemen ts. A first image element is representative of a speedometer . A second image element is representative of a vehicle headlamp indicator. A third image element is representative of a warning indicator . The first, second and third image elements are separated within the display area. That is, the first, second and third image elements are separated by clear space. In other words, the first, second and third image elements are disconnected. FIG. 11 also shows a first eye position 1105 and a second eye position 1107. A first eye disposed at the first eye position 1105 has a corresponding first eye gaze direction 1106 and a second eye disposed at the second eye position 1107 has a corresponding second eye gaze direction 1108. The reader will appreciate that the first eye and second eye are an example of a viewing system disposed on a viewing area or viewing plane. The viewing system may, of course, be a human viewer. The reader will also appreciate that a viewer may have foveal vision and peripheral vision. FIG. 11 highlights a first sub-area 1103 of the display area that corresponds to the viewer's foveal vision. The first sub-area 1103 corresponds to a first sub-area or first image component of the image. In this example, the first image component corresponds to one half of the first image element, the speedometer. FIG. 11 shows how the first eye gaze direction 1106 and second eye gaze direction are directed to the first sub-area 1103”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Mohan further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20190121130 A1, hereinafter “Nguyen”) . Regarding claim 15 , depending on 12, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 12 , Smeeton further teaches: wherein the phase projection-based display device is configured to project the sub-images onto the windshield . However, Smeeton fails to teach wherein the projection surface comprises a holographic optical element (HOE), and wherein the phase projection-based display device is configured to project the sub-images onto the HOE. The analogous art Nguyen teaches: wherein the projection surface comprises a holographic optical element (HOE) (Nguyen: ¶8, “ The holographic optical element may be disposed on a surface of the windshield . Alternatively, the holographic optical element may be integrated within the windshield. . .”; Nguyen: ¶9, “ A method for displaying a virtual image with a head-up display device is also provided. The method includes the steps of providing a combiner including a holographic optical element on a windshield of a vehicle . The method includes projecting a first light beam by a picture generating unit (PGU) and reflecting the first light beam away from the viewer by the inner surface and the outer surface of the windshield as a second light beam and a fourth light beam, respectively. The method also includes steering the first light beam to the viewer by the holographic optical element as a third light beam. The method may also include the step of recording the optical function of a lens or a mirror onto the holographic optical element, which may be a transparent holographic thin film”), and wherein the phase projection-based display device (Nguyen: ¶9, Picture generating unit (PGU), “. . .The method includes projecting a first light beam by a picture generating unit (PGU). . .”) is configured to project the sub-images onto the HOE (Nguyen: ¶9, “. . . displaying a virtual image . . .”; NOTE: The virtual images displayed are the sub-images projected onto the HOE which is disposed on a surface of the windshield). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smeeton, Mohan, and Nguyen and implement Nguyen’s method of using a holographic optical element with a vehicle’s windshield. The reason for doing so is to allow a driver to remain focused while being able to grasp the information that is projected in the field of vision (Nguyen: ¶2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Mohan further in view of Haussler (US 20100014136 A1, hereinafter “Haussler”) . Regarding claim 4 , depending on 3, The combination of Smeeton, and Mohan teaches: The device of claim 1 , Smeeton also discloses wherein the PLM (Smeeton’s SLM) includes micromirrors configured to form respective hologram for projecting each sub-image (Smeeton: ¶200, “Embodiments refer to an electrically-activated LCOS spatial light modulator by way of example only. The teachings of the present disclosure may equally be implemented on any spatial light modulator capable of displaying a computer-generated hologram in accordance with the present disclosure such as any electrically-activated SLMs, optically-activated SLM, digital micromirror device or microelectromechanical device, for example”) (NOTE: Smeeton’s system is about projecting sub-images (Fig. 9A, H1-H8)). However, Smeeton fails to explicitly disclose splitting the incident light into multiple diffraction orders in the modulated incident light, wherein each sub-image is projected on one or more diffraction orders. The analogous art Haussler teaches: wherein the PLM includes micromirrors (Haussler: ¶1, “The present invention relates to a holographic projection system which contains light modulator means with individually controllable modulator cells in the form of electro-mechanically movable micro-mirrors , i.e. a so-called electro-mechanical system (MEMS), for modulating a light wave front”). configured to form a respective hologram for projecting each sub-image (Haussler: ¶22, “The invention is based on the idea to serially encode known spatial light modulator means having modulator cells with phase holograms which correspond with a sequence of video holograms of a moving scene ”; NOTE: Haussler’s invention relates to a holographic projection system, see Abstract) and split the incident light (NOTE: Haussler: Fig. 2 shows the incident light or light wave is split into D1, D0, and D-1 diffraction orders) into multiple diffraction orders in the modulated incident light (Haussler: ¶43, “. . .diffraction orders. . .”) (Haussler: ¶43, “In the present embodiment according to FIG. 1, an illumination device LS illuminates the micro-mirror structure with light of a defined wavelength .lamda., which is capable of generating interference. A semi-transmissive tilted mirror M, which is disposed on the optical axis, preferably directs the light towards the micro-mirrors perpenticular to the modulator surface. This means that in the embodiment the illumination device LS and the semi-transmissive mirror M are arranged in relation to the light modulator SLM such that a light wave propagates mainly along the lowering direction of the diffraction gratings of the light modulator SLM . By a lowering movement of up to half the light wavelength .lamda./2, the movable micro-mirror surfaces 31, 32, 33 thus realise the desired phase modulation of a light wave LW.sub.mod, which propagates away from the light modulator SLM, and which, as shown in FIG. 2, contains beside other higher diffraction orders mainly light portions of the positive and negative first diffraction orders D.sub.-1 and D.sub.+1, and non-diffracted light D.sub.0 . Because higher diffraction orders cannot be used for realising the invention, they are not shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, so to maintain a certain clarity of the diagrams”), wherein each sub-image is projected on one or more diffraction orders (Haussler: ¶48, “According to an embodiment of the invention, a spatial frequency filter like a aperture mask AP having an aperture which let pass the wanted wave portion is disposed in the Fourier plane FTL or at least near the Fourier plane. This frequency filter is shaped geometrically such that it exclusively and, for the benefit of an error-free reconstruction , fully transmits the modulated light of the positive first diffraction order D.sub.+1 to the light exit of the projection system. Generally, the aperture can also be disposed such that it separates the modulated light of the negative first diffraction order D.sub.-1 instead of the modulated light of the positive first diffraction order D.sub.+1 . Other, diffraction orders are less suitable for holographic reconstruction due to their low light intensity”) (NOTE: Haussler invention relates to a holographic projection system (see Abstract); therefore, it can project a sub-image, the modulated light carries holographic information for projection). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smeeton and Haussler and substitute a PLM including micro-mirrors as taught by Haussler (and suggested by Smeeton) to Smeeton’s LCOS to project the sub-images (V1-V8 as taught by Smeeton). The reason for doing so is to “realise a high resolution and low noise while there is a rapidly changing sequence of video holograms” (Haussler: ¶21). Regarding claim 5 , depending on 4, The combination of Smeeton, Mohan, and Haussler teaches: The device of claim 4, Hausler further teaches: wherein the modulated incident light includes a zero-order light projected with the sub-images (Haussler: ¶43, “. . .and non-diffracted light D.sub.0 . . .”; NOTE: also see Haussler figure 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Cl aim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable o ver Smeeton in view of Mohan further in view of Kaiser (US 20130182239 A1, hereinafter “Kaise r”). Regarding claim 6 , depending on 1, The combination of Smeeton and Mohan teaches, The device of claim 1, However, Smeeton fails to teach wherein the phase projection-based display device is a ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (FLCoS) device. (NOTE: Smeeton teaches wherein the phase projection-based display device (Smeeton’s SLM 140) is a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) SLM) The analogous art teaches: wherein the phase projection-based display device (Kaiser: ¶9, “. . .SLM. . .”; Kaiser: ¶14, “Advantageously , the spatial light modulator may be configured to modulate the phase but not the amplitude of the light beam”) is a ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (FLCoS) device (Kaiser: ¶9, “As will be appreciated, the SLM can be a reflective or a transmissive SLM. The SLM may e.g. comprise a (transmissive) ferroelectric liquid crystal (FLC) panel or a (reflective) FLC on silicon (FLCoS) . Commercially available FLCoS panels have up to 1280.times.1024 pixels (reconfigurable elements). Their response time of is less than 100 .mu.s (which makes it possible to image a scene with 100.times.100 pixels at a frame rate of 1 Hz, or with 10.times.10 pixels at a frame rate of 100 Hz). In research papers, FLC cells with response times<10 .mu.s are presented. Alternatively the spatial light modulator could comprise a digital micromirror device, i.e. a chip having on its surface a rectangular array of several hundred thousand pivotable microscopic mirrors. Other technologies could be used for the SLM, such as e.g. a dynamically adjustable diffraction grating (available e.g. as "grating light valve")”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smeeton and Kaiser and implement an FLCOS SLM as taught by Kaiser as a substitute to Smeeton’s LCOS SLM. The reason for doing so is because “the system could also be configured switch, on demand or upon occurrence of a triggering event, from a "standby" mode with low frame rate and/or low resolution, to a full-operation mode with high frame rate and/or high resolution” (Kaiser: ¶8) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Mohan further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20220281317 A1, hereinafter “Ahn”) . Regarding claim 14 , depending on 12, The combination of Smeeton, and Mohan teaches: The vehicle of claim 12 . Although Smeeton discloses that the projector device (Smeeton: ¶201, holographic projection system) is installed in a vehicle such as a car as disclosed in Smeeton: ¶201, Smeeton fails to disclose wherein the projector device is mounted or coupled to a dashboard, the front windshield, or an interior roof of the vehicle, wherein the projector device and the projection surface are facing a driver seat or at a center front position of the vehicle. The analogous art Ahn teaches: wherein the projector device is mounted or coupled to a dashboard, the front windshield, or an interior roof of the vehicle (Ahn: ¶66, “Although FIG. 2A illustrates the projector 1200 arranged on the inner surface of the windshield 110 , the disclosure is not limited thereto. In an embodiment of the disclosure, the projector 1200 may be arranged on the headliner of the vehicle or below the roof of the vehicle , or may be arranged on a console box in the vehicle ”) wherein the projector device and the projection surface are facing a driver seat or at a center front position of the vehicle (NOTE: Ahn Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a shows that the projector device 1200 and the windshield is at the center front position of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smeeton and Ahn and implement Ahn’s placement of the projector within a car. The reason for doing so is to increase a size of the vehicular display without obstructing a driver’s view of the exterior environment (Ahn: ¶4). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 PATRICK GALERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700 ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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. /PATRICK P GALERA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 2 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 3 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 4 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 5 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 6 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 7 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 8 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 9 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 10 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 11 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 12 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 13 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 14 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 15 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 16 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 17 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 18 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 17/895,888 Page 19 Art Unit: 2617
Prosecution Insights