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 .
2. This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1-14, 16-18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(l) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-3, 10-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futterer (US 2013/0222384 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Futterer discloses a method of calculating a hologram of a virtual image (paragraph [0078], hologram encoding compensates for curved virtual SLM replicas, which inherent includes hologram calculation) for an optical system comprising a display device (SLM 200, Fig.1b) arranged to display the hologram (paragraph [0130], “transmissive and reflective SLMs can be used for writing the complex hologram values”) and a waveguide arranged to form a plurality of virtual replicas of the hologram ([0167], “the light-deflecting device 400 comprises two controllable light-deflecting means 410, 420 which image a spatial light modulator SLM 200 multiple times with multiple coherent wave fronts”) displayed by the display device (SLM 200), wherein the method comprises, wherein the method comprises: determining a sub-hologram of a virtual image point (paragraph [0173, “Sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene can be generated”, see Fig. 1b, each segment/point of the Mi (Sub-holograms) corresponds to a sub hologram of a portion of a virtual image; and [0173], [0074] “sequential modulations Mi (Sub-holograms)”)within an area defined by straight line paths from the virtual image point to a perimeter of an entrance pupil of a viewer ([0182], “The subsequently generated segmented wave fronts 720-760 are directed at the eye pupils by imaging means. The imaged segments of the SLM 200 together generate a volume of view which spans from the eye pupils”, and the optional tracking device 600 ensures the hologram aligns with the eye, see paragraph [0172, “The 3D reconstruction of the holographic information which is written to the SLM 200 can be tracked to the movements of the eye pupil of an observer eye 1000 with an optional tracking device 600”; the straight line paths are the inherent optical rays required to form the image to the eye), wherein the area comprises at least part of one or more virtual replicas (“a virtual compound or tiled spatial light modulator”, [0173]) of the display device formed by the waveguide (400, Fig.2) (paragraph [0173], “The light-deflecting device 400 projects the spatial light modulator 200 sequentially segment by segment into the plane of a magnifying lens 530 where these segments together represent a virtual compound or tiled spatial light modulator of high resolution”)
, and wherein each virtual replica of the display device corresponds to a respective virtual replica of the hologram displayed by the display device ([0180], “The SLM 200 can be represented or copied…while carrying different holographic information…generating a compound image 270 of the light modulator”, showing that each copy (replica) of the SLM carries “different holographic information”, which corresponds to the “virtual replica of the hologram”).
Regarding claim 2, Futterer as discussed in claim 1, discloses identifying a virtual surface between the virtual image ( the virtual compound, [0173], [0174]) and the waveguide (400)(Fig.2, paragraph [0173], “The light-deflecting device 400 projects the spatial light modulator 200 sequentially segment by segment into the plane of a magnifying lens 530 where these segments together represent a virtual compound”, and paragraph [0174], “the segments of the spatial light modulator , which can be represented multiple times side by side, virtual light modulator images which correspond to these segments are visible in the volume of view, where modulated wave fronts correspond to the light modulator images”. Indicating the virtual compound has a virtual surface which is in the front of the lens 500, and is placed between the waveguide 400 and 3D virtual image), wherein the virtual surface comprises the display device (SLM 200, Fig.2) and a plurality of virtual replicas (“the light modulator images “, [0174]) of the display device (200) formed by the waveguide (400) (the surface of the virtual compound comprises the segments of the SLM 200, and the light modulator images, that are virtual replicas, generated by the waveguide 400, [0174]); and
identifying the area on the virtual surface (paragraph [0173], each segment within the virtual compound inherent includes an area, and identifying the area on the virtual surface inherently includes so that the virtual surface corresponds to the observer eye).
Regarding claim 3, Futterer as discussed in claim 1, discloses a first sub-hologram (Sub-hologram Mi, [0173]) of a first virtual image point (one of the different views of a three-dimensional scene”, [0173]) is determined within a first area of a first virtual replica ([0173], one of the segments which represents the “virtual compound or tiled spatial light modulator of high resolution” of the display device (slm 200, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Futterer as discussed in claim 1, discloses calculating a respective sub-hologram of each virtual image point of a plurality of virtual image points of the virtual image (paragraph [0180], “The SLM 200 can be represented or copied ..five times one after another in the order 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by subsequent coherent wave fronts”, and “The subsequently generated segmented wave fronts 720-760 are directed at the eye pupils by imaging means. The imaged segments of the SLM 200 together generate a volume of view”. This indicates that each segment which is each wave front that contribute sub-holograms for different sets of points, and defining the wave front for each virtual point so that “the observer can thus perceive the entire volume of view as a whole”, [0174]), is inherently calculating a respective sub-hologram.
Regarding claim 11, Futterer as discussed in claim 10, discloses superimposing the respective sub-holograms (paragraph [0173], “sequential modulations Mi of wave fronts WFi” , each modulation indicates as a sub-hologram) to form a hologram of the virtual image (paragraph [0173], each sub-hologram Mi sequentially “segment by segment together represent a virtual compound or tiled spatial light modulator of high resolution”; paragraph [0174], “the segments of the spatial light modulator 200, which can be represented multiple times side by side in one or two dimensions, virtual light modulator images which correspond to these segments are visible in the volume of view. The observer can thus perceive the entire volume of view as a whole”. The segments together, and visible in the volume of view. The observer can thus perceive the entire volume of view as a whole…together generate a 3D representation” indicates as the superimposing the respective sub-holograms, or see paragraph [0306], “the two superimposed light portions of different, i.e. orthogonal polarisation the common polarisation portion”).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4-9, 12-14, 16 are 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.
6. Claim 17 is allowed.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose identifying one or more sub-areas of the defined area of a complex light field, wherein each sub-area intersects the virtual surface at a position corresponding to a different one of the display device and the plurality of virtual replicas; and wherein each of the one or more sub-areas of the complex light field forms a respective component of the sub-hologram.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3, the Applicant argues that “Futterer’s the segments of the SLM 200 do not amount to the claimed "virtual replicas of the display device". Instead, Futterer's sequential modulations Mi generate "sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene." Futterer, 173. Because Futterer's different modulations Mi produce different holographic content (i.e., "different views") rather than replicas of a single hologram. Futter's segments do not amount to the claimed "virtual replicas of the display device" where "each virtual replica of the display device corresponds to a respective virtual replica of the hologram displayed by the display device."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that “Futterer's different modulations Mi produce different holographic content (i.e., "different views") rather than replicas”, this is a distinction in data content, not optical structure. First of all, the claim 1 requires “virtual replicas of the display device, which Futterer discloses via the light-deflecting device 400 that projects “segments” that “together represent a virtual compound or tiled spatial light modulator”, [0173], and [0180], “The SLM 200 can be represented or copied… five times one after another… while carrying different holographic information”. Futterer explicitly states the segment “copies” of the SLM, while carrying different holographic information. Further, the claim’s requirement that each replica corresponds to “a respective virtual replica of the hologram”, which is met directly by Futterer’s sequential modulations Mi. In paragraph [0180], each copy of the SLM carries different holographic information; and [0173], “Sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene can be generated with the SLM 200…through sequential modulations Mi”, showing that the sequential modulation Mi that are different for each copy. Because the “respective” implies a specific correspondence rather than identical content, Futterer discloses sub-hologram mapped to virtual segment falls within the scope of the claim 1.
Since the cited reference, Futterer discloses "virtual replicas of the display device" where "each virtual replica of the display device corresponds to a respective virtual replica of the hologram displayed by the display device”, therefore, the rejection above is proper.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)-272-2328. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights