DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 1, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 12-16 and 18.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the gesture capture camera is configured such that a shooting direction of the gesture capture camera faces an imaging position corresponding to a refracted light of the negative refractive index plate and a plane direction of the negative refractive index plate” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what exactly is the shooting direction? It is not clear how does the shooting direction in relate to the refracted light and/or plane direction of the negative refractive index plate? It is not clear if the shooting direction is parallel to refracted light to the image position or it is in a direction perpendicular to the refracted light to the image position? The scopes of the claims therefore are unclear.
Claim 12 recites the amended phrase “further comprises suspended particle data”, claim 13 recites the amended phrase “further comprises annular diffusion image data”, claim 14 recites the amended phrase “further comprises annular halo image data is a halo image”, claim 15 recites the amended phrase “further comprises particle trajectory image data of the three dimensional object” and claim 16 recites the amended phrase “further comprises dynamic stepping image data of the three dimensional object” that are confusing and indefinite, since it is not clear what considered to be these image data.
The phrase “further comprises first clothing data of the three dimensional object” and the phrase “further comprises second clothing data” recited in amended claim 18 are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be these data.
The applicant fails to clarify the confusion and indefiniteness of these phrases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Kuribayashi (US 2019/0235737 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Maekawa (US 2009/0310231 A1), US patent application publication by Fukuyama (US 2010/0230611 A1) and US patent issued to Matchtig et al (PN. 6,042,235).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Kuribayashi teaches a display device (1, Figure 1(a) to 1(c)) serves as the device for generating a holographic stereoscopic image wherein the device is comprised of a body (10) comprising a first cavity and a second cavity, a bending axis existing between a central axis of the first cavity (indicated by “d”) and a central axis of the second cavity (indicated by “d”), a second end of the first cavity being in communication with a first end of the second cavity and an opening being formed by the second end of the second cavity on a side wall of the body, a three dimensional display (11) being arranged on the first end of the first cavity and an image forming optical system (9) being arranged between the second end of the first cavity and the first end of the second cavity and a display direction of the three dimensional display facing the image forming optical system (9) and a directing direction of the image forming optical system facing the opening, (please see Figure 1(b)).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Kuribayashi teaches that the image forming optical system (9) comprises a plurality of micromirror elements (90, please see Figure 1(c )), that would direct the image light from the display (11) in a direction that corresponding to negative refraction direction, but it does not teach explicitly that the image forming optical system is a negative refractive index plate.
Maekawa in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical display that is comprised of a reflective plane symmetric imaging element (10, Figure 6) with a light beam redirecting surface (1) that may either comprise a plurality of micromirror elements (13) or metamaterial optical element (30, Figure 8(a), please see paragraph [0039]). The metamaterial is known negative refractive index material. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Maekawa to alternatively use a negative index refractive plate for refracting the image light from the display to the opening of the second cavity of the body for the benefit of using an art well-known negative refractive index plate for forming a real image at the plane-symmetric position with respect to the display device.
Claim 1 further includes the phrase “wherein the three dimensional display is configured such that a ratio of a cosine value of an included angle between the display direction of the three dimensional display and a plane direction of the negative refractive index plate and a cosine value of a included angle between a refractive direction of the negative refractive index plate and the plate surface of the negative refractive index plate is negative of the refractive index of the negative refractive index plate”.
Maekawa et al teaches explicitly that the reflective plane symmetric imaging element (10, Figure 6) with a light beam redirecting surface (1) that may either comprise a plurality of micromirror elements (13) or metamaterial optical element (30, Figure 8(a), please see paragraph [0039]). The metamaterial is known negative refractive index material. As demonstrated by Fukuyama in Figures 17 and 18, the refraction of light from a medium of positive refractive index to a medium of negative index, (please see Figure 18), the light will be refracted in a opposite direction as comparing to the light refracted from a medium of positive refractive index to a medium of positive refractive index, (please see Figure 17). The refraction of the light from one medium to another medium is governed by Snell’s law, as n1*sin(q1) =n2*sin(qr), please see Figures 17 and 18 and equation (1)). The angles q1 and qr are measured with respect to the normal line to the plane. This means the included angle between the incident light and the plane of the interface is 90- q1 and 90-qr. For a light refracted in a negative refractive index medium, the Snell’s law is as follow n1*sin(q1) =n2*sin(-qr), since the refracted beam is in the opposite direction or making a negative angle with respect to the normal line. This means if the first medium n1 is in air with a refractive index one, then Snell’s las will be:
sin(q1) =n2*sin(-qr) = -n2*sin(qr),
Which requires the refractive index n2 for the negative refractive index medium to be negative.
by sum and different formula for the trigonometry, sin(q)=cos(90-q), this means the ratio of cos(90-q1)/cos(90-qr) = sin(q1)/sin(qr) that is -n2 or negative of the refractive index of the negative refractive index plate.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a gesture capture camera” and the phrase “the gesture capture camera is configured such that a shooting direction of the gesture capture camera faces an imaging position corresponding to a refracted light of the negative refractive index plate and a plane direction of the negative refractive index plate”. This phrase is being rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
These references do not teach explicitly to include a gesture capture camera. However, using gesture capture camera is well-known in the display art. As demonstrated by Machtig et al a video camera (250, Figures 28-31) may be provided to capture the image of a viewer of conferee (242). Machtig et al teaches that the camera (250) may be positioned in such way that the shooting direction may be either in the direction of the image position (as shown in Figures 29-31) or in a direction that is perpendicular to the image refracted direction, (please see Figure 28). The video camera (250, Figure 28) taught by Machtig et al has the same shooting direction as the instant application.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Machtig et al also adds a gesture capture camera for the benefit of obtaining the image of the conferee or the viewer. Furthermore, in light of the Kuribayashi et al, the gesture capture camera may also be provided in a position that has a shooting direction that is in the same direction as the display direction.
With regard to claim 2, as shown in Figure 1(b) of Kuribayashi teaches that the first cavity of the body (1) is prism-like (please see the demonstration above) formed in a vertical direction a cross sectional size of the first prism-like cavity may be made to match the size of the display device (11) of the three dimensional display, as obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art, and the second cavity is a second prism-like formed in a transverse direction wherein a longitudinal sectional size of the second prism-like cavity may be made to match the display size of the display device, as obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
With regard to claim 3, Kuribayashi teaches the image forming optical system (9, Figure 1(b)), is tilted with 45 degrees with respect to the display, (please see paragraph [0054]) which makes the direction of the image light from the image forming optical system makes an angle of 90 degrees with respect to the display (11). Maekawa also teaches that the angle between the light redirecting surface (1) is making 45 degrees with the mirror or display (20, Figure 8(a)) and which therefore makes the included angle between the display (20) and the refraction direction of the negative refractive index plate is 90 degrees, (please see Figure 8(a)).
With regard to claim 4, Kuribayashi teaches that a computer serves as the physical interface may be electrically connected to the three dimensional display device for controlling the display, (please see paragraph [0420]).
With regard to claim 9, Maekawa teaches that the metamaterial or the negative refractive index plate (30) has a refractive index of -1, (please see paragraph [0039]). Maekawa also teaches that the virtual mirror image (3) is formed at a plane-symmetric location with respect to the mirror (20). This means the included angle between the display direction of the display or the mirror (20) and the surface of the negative refractive index plate (30) and the included angle between the refraction direction and the surface of the negative refractive index plate (30) are the same and according to the Snell’s law, the ratio of the cosine of the two included angle is equal to opposite number of the refractive index of the negative refractive index plate.
With regard to claim 10, Kuribayashi in light of Maekawa teach to implicitly include a method for generating a holographic stereoscopic image performed by a control unit to control the device wherein the method comprises the step of obtaining a first image data corresponding to the first holographic stereoscopic image, and the step of emitting three dimensional image parallel light corresponding to the first image data in the display direction through the three dimensional display (11) wherein the first holographic stereoscopic image being formed at an imaging position (30, Figure 1(b) of Kuribayashi) along the refraction direction after the three dimensional image parallel is refracted by negative refractive index plate (30, Figure 8a of Maekawa).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Maekawa, Fukuyama and Machtig et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Wang et al (US 2022/0365363 A1).
The display device for generating a holographic stereoscopic image taught by Kuribayashi in combination with the teachings of Maekawa, Fukuyama and Machtig et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, the Kuribayashi teaches that the imaging position (30, Figure 1(b)) is outside the body, but these references do not teach explicitly that the gesture capture camera is positioned outside the body. Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic image display wherein an interactive response unit (3, Figure 1) including a camera (32, please see paragraph [0079]) for motion capturing or gesture capturing. Wang et al teaches that the imaging position (6, Figure 1 of Wang et al) is outside the body and the gesture camera is also arranged outside the body, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to alternatively have the camera be placed outside the body.
With regard to claim 7, it is within the general level of skilled in the art to design the second cavity to be extended to allow the image position and the gesture camera be arranged within the second cavity as an alternative design.
With regard claim 8, Kuribayashi teaches that the camera (18) is to detect the finger of the user that implicitly allow physical interface. Wang et al also teaches that the cameras (31 and 32, Figure 1) is also within an interactive response unit (3) that also provides physical interaction. The cameras are electrically connected.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Maekawa, Fukuyama and Machtig et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Ashizaki et al (US 2003/0210461 A1).
The display device for generating a holographic stereoscopic image taught by Kuribayashi in combination with the teachings of Maekawa, Fukuyama and Machtig et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 11, Kuribayashi teaches that the data comprises three dimensional object data such that by emitting three dimensional image parallel light corresponding to the three dimensional object data in the display direction through the three dimensional display device (11, Figure 1(b)), and the three dimensional object is formed at the imaging position (30) along the refraction direction after the first three dimensional image parallel light refracted by the negative refractive index plate (in light of Maekawa).
These references however do not teach explicitly that the image data also comprises three dimensional motion area display data. Ashizaki et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that an image processing apparatus wherein holographic image data that reproduces stereoscopic motion image, (please see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph [0062]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ashizaki et al to make the data also includes three dimensional motion data for the benefit of allowing the holographic stereoscopic image including both object and motion images to add animation to the image produced.
With regard to claims 12-16, the scopes of the claims are confusing for the reason set forth in the rejections of claims under 35 USC 112, second paragraph above. These claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. With regard to suspended particle data, the annular diffusion data, the annular halo data, particle trajectory data or dynamic stepping data recited in claims 12-16, It is within the general level of skills in the art to modify the image data that may be provided to the display device for the benefit of providing additional image effect to the generated holographic image.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Maekawa, Fukuyama, Machtig et al and Ashizaki et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Wang et al (US 2022/0365363 A1).
The display device for generating a holographic stereoscopic image taught by Kuribayashi in combination with the teachings of Maekawa, Fukuyama, Machtig et al and Ashizaki et al as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 17, Kuribayashi teaches that the display device comprises a detector with a camera (18, Figure 24(a)) for detecting the finger position of the user. Machtig et al also teaches to include a gesture capture camera (250, Figures 28-30). Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic image display wherein an interactive response unit (3, Figure 1) including a camera (32, please see paragraph [0079]) for motion capturing or gesture capturing. Wang et al teaches that the gesture action recognized is to update the first image data based on the gesture action to generate a second image data. In light of Kuribayashi the second image data may be inputted to the display device (11, Figure 1(b)) such that emitting three dimensional image parallel light corresponding to the second image data in the display direction through the three dimensional display a second holographic stereoscopic image being formed at the image position along the refraction direction after the three-dimensional image parallel light corresponding the second image data is refracted by the negative refractive index plate (in light of Maekawa ).
With regard to claims 18-20, it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the image data of the holographic stereoscopic image based on the detected gesture action in different ways to obtain the modified image data to generate holographic stereoscopic image in accordance with the gesture action of the viewer to accommodate different characteristics of the gesture motion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 1, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above. In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the gesture camera, it is noted that the amended phrase concerning the gesture camera is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear if the shooting direction is parallel to the refracted light from the negative refractive index plate or it is toward to the image position (which is perpendicular to the refracted light from the negative refractive index plate). The cited Machtig reference discloses that the video camera may be either disposed with a shooting direction parallel or perpendicular to the refracted light, (please see Figures 29-31). The cited Machtig reference therefore reads on the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights