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 November 24, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-16, 18-19 and has canceled claim 17.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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 1-16 and 18-20 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 group of sub-elements being spaced closer to each other than they are to sub-elements of an immediately adjacent display element”, and in contrast to the phrase “optical system configured to generate the plurality of the display element by reducing the size of the group of the sub-elements within each display element that the group of sub-elements are spaced closer to each other than they are to sub-elements of an immediately adjacent display element” recited in claim 2, it is not clear if the “spaced closer” feature is referred to the arrangement of display element with the plurality of sub-elements themselves or is referred to the result of the optical action of the optical system. Clarifications are required. For the purpose of examination, this feature is being examined in the interpretation of the arrangement of the display element not the optical action of the optical system, however proper clarification and correction are required.
The phrase “an optical system configured to generate the plurality of display elements” recited in claim 2 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how the optical system could generate the plurality of elements. It is not clear if this phrase means an image of the plurality of display elements being generated by the optical system not the display elements themselves being generated by the optical system. For the purpose of examination, this phrase is being interpreted in the above statement. However proper clarification and correction are required. This rejection has already stated in the previous Office Action. In response to applicant’s arguments provided in the remark, the applicant is respectfully noted that an optical system can only create “image” not the display element itself.
The phrase “defined by the first dimension and a third dimension than in the second plane defined by the second dimension and the third dimension” recited in claim 6 is confusing and indefinite. This statement makes the scopes of the claim unclear. In response to applicant’s arguments provided in the Remark, it is not clear what considered to be the dimension.
The phrase “controlling a phase of a plurality of groups of sub-elements such that the output of sub-elements within each group combines to produce a respective first amplitude and a fist phase …” recited in claim 19 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be these “sub-elements”. It is not clear how do these sub-elements relate to the “computer-generated hologram”. The scopes of claims are unclear and indefinite. In response to applicant’s arguments present in the Remark, the arguments fail to clarify the issues.
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, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by An et al (US 2020/0142355 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Cable et al (US 2007/0109617 A1), US patent application publication by Lin et al (US 2011/0038043 A1) and US patent application publication by Zeng et al (US 2021/0200012 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
An et al teaches a holographic display apparatus that is comprised of an illumination source (110, Figure 1) that includes laser diode (please see paragraph [0068]) that is at least partially coherent, a spatial light modulator (130) that may include both amplitude modulation and phase modulation (please see paragraph [0068]) to provide a plurality of display elements and a modulation system. An et al teaches that the spatial light modulator with the plurality of display elements is positioned to receive the light from the illumination source and spaced apart from each other, wherein each display element comprising a group of at least two sub-elements, (please see Figure 2, indicated by circles 1, 2, 3, and 4).
An et al teaches that the spatial light modulator (130) may comprise both amplitude modulation and phase modulation, (please see paragraph [0068]). Cable et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display that is comprised of a spatial light modulator (100, Figure 1) with a plurality of display elements (101, 102, 103) and sub-elements corresponding to pixelated phase mask elements (120-being phase mask and pixelated elements 121-126, Figures 1 and 2). The phase mask serves as the modulation system associated with each display elements and configured to modulate at least a phase of each of the plurality of sub-elements. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Cable et al to utilize a phase mask as a phase modulation system separated from the spatial light modulator for the benefit of using a separated phase modulation system configured to modulate a phase of each of the sub-elements.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the group of sub-elements being spaced closer to each other than they are to sub-elements of an immediately adjacent display element”.
This reference does not teach explicitly concerning the arrangement of the display elements and the sub-display elements. Lin et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an autostereoscopic display apparatus that is comprised of a plurality of pixels that serves as the display elements, (please see Figure 2). Lin et al teaches, in Figure 2, that each lenticular segment (102) corresponding to a pixel or a display element wherein each display element further comprises a group of sub-pixels or sub-elements (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), wherein the group of the sub-elements being spaced closer to each other than they are to sub-element or sub-pixel of an immediately adjacent display element or pixel, (please paragraphs [0020] and [0021]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lin et al to modify the display apparatus of An et al to make the display elements have the specific arrangement for the benefit of allowing the image to be displayed with desired properties.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein the illumination source has sufficient coherence that the light from respective sub-elements within each display element can interfere with each other”.
An et al teaches that the light sources comprise laser diode, which known in the art as coherent light source. It is implicitly true that the illumination light from respective sub-elements may interference with each other.
Claim 1 has also been amended to include “a controller for controlling the modulation system such that light from each sub-element within each display element combines so that each display element (i) has a first amplitude and phase when viewed from a first position of a first pupil plane for a first eye of a viewer and (ii) simultaneously has a second amplitude and phase when viewed from a second position of a second pupil plane for a second eye of the viewer”.
An et al teaches the holographic display apparatus comprises an image processor serves as the controller for controlling the modulation system such that each display element has a first amplitude and phase when viewed from a first position of a first pupil of a viewer and a second amplitude and phase when viewed from a second position or a second pupil of a viewer, (Figure 1, viewing position comprises a left eye position and a right eye position).
Zeng et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display apparatus wherein a phase modulation is introduced by using a liquid crystal panel (121, please see Figure 1 and paragraph [0032]) which means that the phase modulation may be controlled by a controller that drive the liquid crystal panel. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Zeng et al to modify the apparatus An et al and the Cable et al to make the phase modulation be specifically controlled by a controller.
With regard to claim 14, Cable et al teaches that each display element consists of two-dimensional group of sub-elements having a dimensions n by m, with n being two and m being two, (i.e. two by two sub-elements Figure 2).
With regard to claim 15, An et al teaches an optical system (140, Figure 1 of An et al) with convergence system arranged to direct an output of the holographic display toward a viewing position, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 16, Cable et al teaches that the phase mask configured to limit a size of the sub-elements, (please see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 18, An et al teaches that the holographic display apparatus further comprises an eye tracker (170, Figure 1) for determining the first position and the second position of the eyes.
Claim(s) 2-7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al, Cable et al, Lin et al and Zeng et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Meyers (PN. 5,822,125).
The holographic display apparatus taught by An et al in combination with the teachings of Cable et al, Lin et al and Zeng et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 2, An et al teaches that the holographic display apparatus further comprises an optical system (140, Figures 1, 2, and 13), configured to generate image of the plurality of display elements. The optical system implicitly has certain magnification due to the refraction property of the system. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the optical system is to reduce the size of the group of sub-elements within each display element. Meyers in the same field of endeavor teaches a lenslet array that has the property to reduce the image size, (please see Figures 21B and 22). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Meyers to modify the optical system of An et al to design it has a property of reducing the image size for the benefit of making the holographic display apparatus have the desired property.
With regard to claim 3, both An et al and Meyers teach that the optical system comprises an array of optical elements, (please see Figures 13 and 14 for An et al and Figure 22, Meyers).
With regard to claims 4-5, both An et al and Meyers teach that the optical system may have different magnification in first and second dimensions, (please see Figures 13 and 14 of An et al and Figure 21-23 of Meyers) such that one magnification is less than the other. With regard to claim 5, the first and second directions may be horizontal and vertical directions.
With regard to claims 6-7, the scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite for the reasons set forth rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. It can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. Both An et al and Meyers teaches that the optical system comprise an array of optical element such that each of the optical element comprises a first and second lens surfaces at least one of the first and second lens surfaces having a different radius of curvature in a first plane, (please see Figure 14, of An et al and Figures 22 and 23 of Meyers). Both An et al and Meyers teach that the array of the optical elements of the optical system are arranged in two-dimensional arrangement, (please see Figure 13 or Figure 21B). The radius of curvature of the lens surface may also be different in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane. With regard to claim 7, the different curvatures would associate with different focal lengths.
With regard to claims 11-12, Both An et al and Meyers teach that the optical system is configured to converge light passing through the optical system towards a viewing position. Meyers teaches that the optical system comprises an array of optical elements that each optical element comprises a first lens surface with a first optical axis and a second lens surface with a second optical axis wherein the first optical axis is offset with respect to the second optical axis, (please see Figures 12, 22 and 23 of Meyers). With regard to claim 12, the optical element located at the edge of the display may have a greater offset in axes than for an optical element positioned closer to the center of the display.
With regard to claim 13, Meyers teaches that each of the optical elements of the system may comprise a first lens surface and a second lens surface spaced apart from each other along an optical path through the optical element, (please see Figure 12). The first lens surface are spaced apart along the array at a first pitch and the second lens surface are spaced apart along the array at a second pitch that the second pitch being smaller than the first pitch.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al, Cable et al, Lin et al, Zeng et al and Meyer as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Numata et al (PN. 7,164,454).
The holographic display apparatus taught by An et al in combination with the teachings of Cable et al, Lin et al, Zeng et al and Meyer as described in claims 1 and 2 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, Meyers teaches that the array of the optical elements are each comprises a first lens surface configured to receive light having a first wavelength and light having second wavelength, and a second lens surface in optical path with the first lens surface, (please see Figures 12, 22 and 23). These references however do not teach explicitly that the first lens surface further comprises a first surface portion adapted for the first wavelength and a second surface portion adapted for the second wavelength. Numata et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens having a lens surface that includes a first lens portion adapted for light of a first wavelength and a second lens portion adapted for light of the second wavelength, (please Figure 9, the lens surface is at the interface of the 61 and 62 regions). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Numata et al to modify the lens surface with different lens portions for adapting to different wavelengths of the light respectively for the benefit of allowing different wavelengths of the incident light be separately imaged to different locations of the image plane.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Numata et al teaches that the first surface portion optically adapted for the first wavelength by having a first radius of curvature and first focal point and the second surface portion optically adapted for the second wavelength having a second radius of curvature and second focal point, (please see Figure 9).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by An et al (US 2020/0142355 A1) in view of US patent application publication by Lin et al (US 2011/0038043 A1).
Claim 19 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
An et al teaches a holographic display apparatus that includes a method of displaying a computer generated hologram (please see paragraph [0004]), that is comprised of method step including controlling a phase of plurality of groups of sub-elements, (please see Figure 2), by an image processor (160, Figure 1), such that the output of the sub-elements within each group combines to produce respective first amplitude and a first phase at a first viewing position (such as for a left eye or a right eye), and a respective second amplitude and a second phase at a second viewing position (such as a right eye or a left eye). An et al teaches the image processor (160) controls the amplitude and phase of a spatial light modulator (130, Figure 1) for displaying the computer-generated hologram, (please see paragraph [0069]).
Claim 19 has been amended to include the phrase “controlling a phase of a plurality of groups of sub-elements such that light from each sub-element within each group combines to produce (i) a respective first amplitude and a phase at a first viewing position of a first pupil plane for a first eye of a viewer and (ii) respective second amplitude and a second phase at a second viewing position of a second pupil plane for a second eye of the viewer, wherein each group of sub-elements forms a display element, and wherein the group of sub-element are spaced closer to each other than they are sub-elements of an immediately adjacent display element”.
An et al teaches the holographic display apparatus comprises an image processor serves as the controller for controlling the modulation system such that each display element has a first amplitude and phase when viewed from a first position of a first pupil of a viewer and a second amplitude and phase when viewed from a second position or a second pupil of a viewer, (Figure 1, viewing position comprises a left eye position and a right eye position).
Lin et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an autostereoscopic display apparatus that is comprised of a plurality of pixels that serves as the display elements, (please see Figure 2). Lin et al teaches, in Figure 2, that each lenticular segment (102) corresponding to a pixel or a display element wherein each display element further comprises a group of sub-pixels or sub-elements (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), wherein the group of the sub-elements being spaced closer to each other than they are to sub-element or sub-pixel of an immediately adjacent display element or pixel, (please paragraphs [0020] and [0021]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lin et al to modify the display apparatus of An et al to make the display elements have the specific arrangement for the benefit of allowing the image to be displayed with desired properties.
With regard to claim 20, An et al further teaches to include an eye tracker (170) for determining the first and second viewing positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 24, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amened claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, have bee addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 at 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