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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 28, 2026 that has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 16, 19, and 20.
Claims 16-30 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 19-23 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 19 includes the phrase “an acceptance cone with a point of origin at the object point and oriented towards the 3D scene” that is confusing and indefinite since the object point is the 3D scene itself of it is within the 3D scene, it is not clear how could the acceptance cone origin at the object point being pointing at object point itself. The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite.
Claim 19 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the acceptance cone defines a maximum angle at which traced rays to the angle dependent light component of the object point and wherein rays outside the acceptance cone have a contribution to the angle-dependent light component smaller than a threshold for a given light intensity” that is completely confusing and indefinite. Specifically, it is not clear how to do ray trace to a light component of the object point? That is to say it is not clear how to do ray trace to a light?
For the purpose of examination, the acceptance cone is being interpreted as tracing rays origin from the object point that span a maximum angle such that light rays outside the acceptance cone have a contribution to the light component with a light intensity that is smaller than a threshold value.
Claims 20-23 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article “Full Parallax Computer Generated Hologram using GPU-accelerated Ray Tracing Method” by Ichikawa et al ( PRACTICAL HOLOGRAPHY XXVI: MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS, February 9, 2012, Vol. 8281, pages 1-8) in view of the patent issued to Haines (PN. 4,969,700).
Claim 16 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Ichikawa et al teaches a full parallax computer generated hologram method that serves as the method for computing a holographic interference pattern for a holographic plane (please see Figure 1) comprising pixels of an illuminated three dimensional scene, comprising object points representing one or more 3D objects (virtual objects, please see Figure 1), wherein the method is comprised of the step of determining for a respective object point a total light component contributed by one or more light sources (is, id, please see page 4) in the 3D scene, (please see the equation (2)), and the step of calculating for respective pixel a complex-valued amplitude (please see equation (3)) based on the total light components of non-occluded object points within a viewing cone of the pixel thereby deriving the holographic interference pattern, (please see pages 2-5).
Claim 16 also includes the phrase “total light component contributed by one or more light sources illuminating the 3D scene”.
Ichikawa et al teaches the light sources are individual light sources in the scenes. Haine teaches a computer aided holography wherein light source (10, Figure 1) is provided to illuminate the three-dimensional scene (30) wherein the light component contributed by the light source therefore implicitly may be determined.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Haine to modify Ichikawa et al to use explicitly light source to illuminate the 3D scene for the benefit to explicitly determining the light component from the light source.
Claim 16 further includes the phrase “a viewing cone of the respective pixel wherein the viewing cone of the respective pixel defines a part of the 3D scene seen from the respective pixel”.
Ichikawa et al teaches that the viewing cone of a respective pixel wherein the viewing cone of the respective pixel defines a part of the 3D scene seen from the respective pixel, (please see Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1 of Haine, a viewing cone of a respective pixel (52, Figure 1) defines a part of the 3D scene (30) seen from the respective pixel.
Claim 16 has been amended to include the phrase “determining for each of a plurality of respective object points a total light components contributed by one of more light sources illuminating the 3D scene”.
Ichikawa et al teaches that the method for generating computer generated hologram (CGH) wherein the (CGH) is generated from a plurality of object points, (please see Figure 1). It is therefore necessary for the method to include the step of determining for each of the plurality of respective object point a total light component contributed by one or more light sources illuminating the 3D scene. Specifically, Ichikawa et al demonstrates the determination of the total light component for one of the object point, and it is within general skilled in the art that the same determination step can be applied for each of the plurality of respective object points for the benefit of allowing the CGH be generated for the 3D scene that comprises the plurality of object points.
Claim 16 has been amended to include the phrase “the total light component determined for a respective object point is used form calculating the complex valued amplitude determined for a respect object point is used for calculating the complex valued amplitude of multiple pixels”.
As shown in Figure 1, it is true that the total light component from each of respective object point may interest with a plurality of pixels of the hologram plane, which means the total light component from an object point may contribute to a plurality of pixels, (please see the demonstration below) which means the total light component from the object point is used to calculate the complex valued amplitude of multiple pixels.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 has been amended to include the phrase “the determining is performed for all of the plurality of object points to said calculating”.
Since the computer generated hologram is calculated for the plurality of object points in the 3D scene, the total light component for each of the plurality of the object points, has to be determined before the calculation step, for such process is either implicitly met by the disclosure of Ichikawa et al or an obvious modification for one skilled in the art to achieve the generation of the CGH of the 3D scene.
With regard to claims 17 and 18, Ichikawa et al teaches that the step of determining comprises the step of calculating an angle-dependent light component (ks), referring to specular reflection coefficient of the light from light source, based on tracing direct rays from the object point towards the one or more light sources in the 3D scene and the step of calculating the angle-dependent light component based on tracing indirect rays from the object points towards the one or more light sources in the 3D scene.
With regard to amended claims 19-23, the phrase “acceptance cone” is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The amendments to claims 19 and 20 further incurs additional rejections under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. This makes the scopes of the claim unclear. These claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Ichikawa et al teaches the computer-generated hologram is calculated using a ray tracing method including a Phong reflection model, (please see page 4). The tracing from the center of an elementary hologram conducts intersection determination with the objects in the 3D scene, (please see section 2.2). In the Phone reflection model, the ray tracing from a point of origin at the object point may oriented towards the light source and from the point origin to the viewpoint, (please see Figure 3). This means arbitrarily defined acceptance cone may be define with the ray traced towards the light source and a viewing cone may be defined with the ray traced toward a viewpoint that may located at the hologram plane, (please Figure 2). For specular reflection, the acceptance cone may be coincided with the viewing cone. The size of the acceptance cone may be defined based on the size of the viewing cone, since they are related in the reflection property as shown in Figures 2 and 3. It is implicitly true that the viewing cone of the pixel is defined by the hologram wavelength and spacing of the pixels in the hologram plane, (please see Figures 1-3).
With regard to amendment to claim 19, the light component of each object point is angle dependent with respect to the pixel of the hologram plane. It is obvious to one skill in the art to determine the acceptance cone of the light component generated from a specific object point wherein the light component falls outside of the acceptance cone could be determined by having an intensity that is smaller than a selected threshold intensity value. This modification would have the advantage of setting a cut-off for the selection of the light component to calculate the CGH with less iteration steps.
With regard to claims 24 and 25, Ichikawa et al teaches that the step of determining comprises the step of calculating an angle-independent light component (ka and kd), referring to ambient and diffusing reflection coefficients of the light from light source, based on tracing direct rays from the object point towards the one or more light sources in the 3D scene and the step of calculating the angle-dependent light component based on tracing indirect rays from the object points towards the one or more light sources in the 3D scene.
With regard to claim 26, this reference does not teach explicitly concerning the one or more light sources comprises at least one area light source and/or at least one volumetric light source. However, such modifications are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art for it does not affect the method for calculating the Computer-Generated Hologram.
With regard to claim 27, Ichikawa et al teaches that the object points are distributed over the surfaces of the one or more 3D objects and the number of the object points representing a respective surface is a function of the area of the surface, its orientation, its distance to the hologram plane.
With regard to claims 28 and 29, Ichikawa et al teaches the method is to calculate a computer-generated hologram that implicitly requires a computer to run the computer executable program including the method. A computer readable storage medium comprises the computer program is implicitly included.
With regard to claim 30, Ichikawa et al teaches the method is to calculate a computer-generated hologram that implicitly requires a data process for carrying out the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly proposed amendments have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments which state that the cited Ichikawa reference is pixel-centric or elementary hologram centric ray tracing and it is not to determine light component from the object point, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth below. The applicant is respectfully reminded that claim 16 specifically claims that the calculation is with respect to a pixel of the hologram plane, which therefore is also pixel-centric or elementary hologram centric calculation. Applicant being one skilled in the art further has to have the basic knowledge that computer generated hologram is to calculate the holographic pixel values at the hologram plane and not at the object points. Furthermore, Ichikawa et al specific teaches that the computation is about the summation of light components from each of the light sources each illuminates the object point, (please see equation (3) of page 4). This reference therefore reads on the claims.
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