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 October 17, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 16-20, 24 and 24.
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 16-30 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.
The phrase “acceptance cone” recited in amended claim 19, 20 and 22 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to objectively define the “acceptance cone”. The phrase “an acceptance cone with a point of origin at the object point and oriented towards the 3D scene” recited in claim 19 is confusing and indefinite since the object point is within the 3D scene so what does it mean by “oriented towards the 3D scene”? The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite. Claim 19 has been amended to include the phrase “the acceptance cone oriented towards the 3D scene defines a part of the 3D scene seen from the respective object point that can meaningfully contribute to the angle-dependent light component of the object point” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to objectively define “meaningfully”. The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite.
The phrase “the acceptance cone has normal coinciding with a normal of reflected copy of viewing cone” recited in claim 20 is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear what is this normal and it is not clear how to define the normal. Claim 20 has been amended to include the phrase “a copy of a viewing cone reflected along the surface normal with a point of origin at the object point” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to define the “surface normal”? It is not clear the surface is referred to what? Claim 20 has been amended to further include the phrase “the viewing cone reflected defines an area of the holographic plane visible from the respective object point” that is really confusing and indefinite.
The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite. Applicant is respectfully required to clarify all the discrepancies of the claims to make the claims in comply with the requirements of 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs.
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 has been amended to include 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 has been amended to include 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.
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 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 October 17, 2025, 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, the instant application also depends on ray tracing. As demonstrated by the cited reference Haine, the light component from the single light source (10, Figure 1) that illuminates the 3D scene (30) is essentially the same as the light component of the viewing cone obtained by ray tracing from the pixel.
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