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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/04/2026. Claims 1 , 3-8, and 13 are amended and claims 1, 3-8, and 13 are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hyperchromatic optical imagining system … comprising … laser illumination sources … at least one two-dimensional display … a hyperchromatic optical element having a wavelength-dependent focal length; an optical system …” as limited in (Claim 1), “element suitable for generating different images at at least two distinct viewing angles” (Claim 1, Specifications), “a hyperchromatic optical imagining super system” (Claim 3), “a set of hyperchromatic optical imagining systems…according to claim 1” (Claim 1, 3), adjustable lenses, mirrors, gratings and active lenses and mirrors (Claims 3, 6), a hyperchromatic optical unit comprising first and second optical units having respective fixed and adjustable focal lengths (Claim 6), movable, deformable, electro-optic embodiments of a second hyperchromatic optical element (Claim 6), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). From the 5/04/2026 Remarks, it appears that the previous objection was misunderstood as merely being against the claimed recitations of elements as individual constituents of the system. Rather, the objection is based on the system as a whole and the configurations of the constituent elements in relation to others as missing from the drawings.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an element configured to generate different images at at least two distinct viewing angles” (Claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-8, and 13 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 recites “laser illumination sources emitting light at at least two distinct wavelengths, said laser illumination sources being encoded independently”. In light of the Specifications, there are mutually exclusive interpretations of this grammatical construction that would frustrate a determination of direct infringement by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Firstly, it is unclear if “emitting light at at least two distinct wavelengths” modifies the “laser illumination sources” individually or collectively. Either the language is interpreted as each laser illumination source emitting light two or more distinct wavelengths or the sources as a collection emit two or more wavelengths, meaning each may emit a single wavelength. This indefiniteness is compounded by “being encoded independently” and a lack of clarity regarding the means for encoding. Firstly, it is unclear if “being encoded independently” modified “at least two distinct wavelengths” or “laser illumination sources”. Under the former interpretation, light emitted by sources is “encoded independently” and thus downstream from the source itself. Under the latter interpretation, sources are “encoded independently” and thus the claim limits control of the lasers as independent. These mutually exclusive interpretations are further understood in light of the mutually exclusive interpretations of the correspondence between wavelengths and sources, and it becomes unclear whether the claim captures independent encoding of respective wavelengths from a single source, whether the claim captures independent encoding of light emitted from distinct sources, or some combination thereof. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted until the indefiniteness of these mutually exclusive interpretations is resolved.
Claim 1 recites “at least one two-dimensional display including an element configured to generate different images at at least two distinct viewing angles”. In the 5/4/2026 Remarks (Pages 38-40), Applicant points to structures such as the DMD of Fig. 4, the display of Fig. 10 and 14 for support. Examiner notes that these elements of Figs. 4, 10, and 11 are disparately disclosed and not integrated within the system in a configuration for generating “distinct viewing angles”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the elements (DMD, diffuser, curved mirrors) as providing light at varying angles, though without integration into the system it is unclear that any of these elements are the claimed “two-dimensional display including an element configured to generate different images at at least two distinct viewing angles”. In particular, the DMD of Fig. 4A and the virtual images of Fig. 4B are not disclosed as integrated within the invention as these appear to be figures from the publication “ANGULAR AND SPATIAL LIGHT MODULATOR BY SINGLE MICROMIRROR DEVICE FOR MULTI-IMAGE OUTPUT AND NEARLY-DOUBLED ETENDUE” by Hellman, et al. and not a feature of Applicant’s invention. The “high gain angle-maintaining diffuser” of Fig. 10 has angular dependence of diffused light though again lacks integration in the claimed system as a whole. Fig. 9 does not appear to provide a system capable of integration with the diffuser of Fig. 10 as Applicant notes that the diffuser requires laser sources provided at differing angles. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, “an element configured to generate different images at at least two distinct viewing angles” invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) though is indefinite as the corresponding structure cannot be clearly determined. In the disclosure, Applicant associates angle encoding to a “spatial light modulator” without providing a structure in the disclosure. It is noted that Applicant intended to incorporate by reference “ANGULAR AND SPATIAL LIGHT MODULATOR BY SINGLE MICROMIRROR DEVICE FOR MULTI-IMAGE OUTPUT AND NEARLY-DOUBLED ETENDUE” by Hellman et al., Optics Express, volume 27, issue 15, pp. 21467-21496, Jul. 22, 2019. This is improper as the subject matter intended to be incorporated is “essential material” under 37 C.F.R. 1.57 as it is necessary to provide a written description of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), describe the invention in terms that particularly point out the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and describe the structure performing the specified function under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Further, Applicant lists possible structural solutions capable of performing the claimed function without necessarily limiting the structure as such: “two dimensional (2D) images are generated in a single plane of the display device, for example digital light processing (DLP) display, liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) display, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, micro-LED display or scanning laser display”. Accordingly, there is no structure corresponding to the function “for generation different images at at least two distinct viewing angles”.
Claim 1 recites “an element configured to generate different images at at least two different viewing angles”, “a hyperchromatic optical element having a wavelength-dependent focal length” and “an optical system including at least one lens and/or mirror, said optical system configured to generate images separated in depth and dependent on viewing angle”. Further, Applicant provides explicit correspondence between the optical system of 3200 of Fig. 9 and the claimed “optical system”. In light of this statement, the metes and bounds of the system cannot be determined as it appears that the claimed “optical system” is the “hyperchromatic optical imaging system” to which the claim is drawn under this interpretation. The grammatical construction of the claim appears to require the “optical system” to be a component of the “hyperchromatic optical imaging system” and distinct from the sources, two-dimensional display, and hyperchromatic optical element and yet performs the same functions are portions thereof. In pointing the 3200 in Fig. 9 as correspondence (page 41 of the Remarks), Applicant points to a system that includes that which is also argued as corresponding to the claimed two-dimensional display element and hyperchromatic optical element. For example, Applicant points to mirror 3214 of Fig. 9 as an embodiment of the claimed hyperchromatic optical element having wavelength dependent focal conditions and yet this is an element of the optical system 3200 corresponding to the claimed “optical system”. It is unclear if the “optical system” of the claim is to be understood as a distinct element or a description of the system including other claimed elements. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted until the indefiniteness of these mutually exclusive interpretations is resolved.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said images" in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to which images “said images” refers in Line 17 as “images” is recited in Lines 2 (“perceived” images), 9 (display images at “distinct viewing angles”), 15 (optical system images “separated in depth and dependent on viewing angle”).
Claim 1 recites “being synchronized with illumination wavelengths of said laser illumination sources to create images at different depths such that a complete three- dimensional image can be perceived dependent on the viewing angle” directed to a process step within the apparatus claim. Confusion as to when direct infringement occurs results in indefiniteness of the claimed invention, Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this instance, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows an observer to perceive a 3D image or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the hyperchromatic optical imagining system. The step of synchronizing is not performed by any of the elements recited in the claim (i.e. sources, display, hyperchromatic optical element, optical system) but rather facilitated/enabled by the elements. A controller of the system would perform the step of synchronizing, though such an element is not captured in the claim. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand this language as clearly limiting the structure(s) of the recited elements. Further, the manner by which a structure is limited by intended perception is not clear. Under one interpretation, it appears that user actions are required in the performance of the claimed functionality as the functionality is not clearly tied to the structure of the elements themselves. For example, it is unclear if a system having all of the recited elements worn by a stationary user (i.e. no change of viewing angle) directly infringes on the claimed invention as limited. Additionally, the particular algorithmic solution of “synchronizing” and the performance of three-dimensional image display is not tied to structure, function, and/or operation of any particular claimed element. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted until the indefiniteness of these mutually exclusive interpretations is resolved.
In Claim 3, the duplication of hyperchromatic imagining systems “according to claim 1” are further limited by “in which said laser illumination sources operate at a first basic color range … and … said illumination sources operate at a second basic color range”. There is no reasonable interpretation to this combination of limitations on illumination sources as it’s unclear if the language is intended to limit respective pluralities of sources or to provide further, simultaneous ranges of wavelengths of the same sources or another alternative sources. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted until the indefiniteness of these mutually exclusive interpretations is resolved.
Claim 3 recites “a first hyperchromatic optical imaging system in which said laser illumination sources operate at a first basic color range” and Claim 6 recites “said laser illumination devices of said first hyperchromatic optical imaging system include a first multiple wavelength laser source configured to emit laser light at a first plurality of wavelengths in a first basic color range”. The recited illumination sources and limitations on wavelengths and colors are indefinite in the language of Claim 6. The claim does not use an article for limiting “first basic color range” as having antecedence in Claim 3 (e.g. “a first plurality of wavelengths in the first basic color range”). The metes and bounds of the sources cannot be determined in Claim 6. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected on analogous grounds.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said at least one two-dimensional display of at least one said hyperchromatic optical imagining system of said set" in Lines 13-14. There are a plurality of two-dimensional displays and a plurality of hyperchromatic optical imagining systems of the set and thus it is unclear which serves as antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Much of the remaining language of Claim 6 lacks clear antecedent basis in an analogous manner. The claim must clearly reference preceding elements serving as antecedent basis in limitations for the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to be understood. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected on analogous grounds.
Claim 7 recites “has a focal length” is grammatically given the context of the claimed invention having at least first and second focal lengths. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It can be said that the fist hyperchromatic optical element focuses light, but not that it has a focal length that is a plurality of focal lengths.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 37, Applicant argues that Fig. 3 shows a system for generation of 3D images. While Examiner agrees, the drawing objection is that the system is not shown as claimed, i.e. the constituent elements.
On page 37, Applicant argues “laser illumination sources” of claim 1 are shown in Fig. 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the depicted laser sources such as 422-413 and 3250-3270 are disclosed as providing multiple wavelengths but these elements are not “being encoded independently”. This is partly tied to indefiniteness with the mutually exclusive interpretations of the phrasing. The claim is not clear as to whether the “at least two distinct wavelengths” modifies the plurality of illumination sources or the respective each of the plurality of illumination sources.
On page 38, Applicant argues that Fig. 9 shows a two-dimensional display 3212 as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the arrangement of laser illumination sources relative to the two-dimensional display and a lack of angular dependence, as claimed, stemming from the 3212 element. The drawing objection may stem from confusion about the structure of the two-dimensional display.
On pages 38-39, Applicant argues that “element configured to generate different images at at least two distinct viewing angles” is depicted in Figs. 4, 10, and 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the arrangement of laser illumination sources relative to the element and claimed functionality of the system. It cannot said that the disparately disclosed element in Figs. 4, 10, 14 are capable of integration with any particular embodiment of the system captured in the claim.
The drawing objection above is maintained as Fig. 9 appears to be the only depiction of elements of the claimed system together and configured as claimed. Further, it is noted that the Applicant has elected between various disclosed species including optical combining via an optical filter and wavelength-selection via diffraction gratings. Applicant points to many figures or portions of figures evidencing compliance with drawing requirements for non-elected species.
On pages 46-48, Applicant argues that there is no indefiniteness in the claim construction duplication hyperchromatic optical imagining systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees, though some of the language that did not previously define the metes and bounds of the claim has been remedied. A claim may properly duplicate the apparatus of the base claim in a system claim, though the pending Claim 3 does not do this clearly. The grammatical construction of providing first through third hyperchromatic optical imagining systems each “according to claim 1” does not clearly define the invention in phrases referencing antecedence in the base claim. The phrase “said laser illumination sources” neither clearly references nor provides antecedent basis in the claim. Language such as “each” and “respective” ought to be used to clarify that which the limitation references and not merely an article such as “said”. Additionally, duplicative elements frustrate a clear understanding of the duplication of the hyperchromatic optical imagining systems. In duplication of the hyperchromatic optical imagining systems, the super system includes three pluralities of laser illumination sources, three at least one two-dimensional display, three hyperchromatic optical elements, and three optical systems. Claim 3 introduces a further optical element to the supersystem to combine images. On page 47, Applicant maps the claims duplication to that which is shown in Fig. 9, though the mapping falls short as the claim appears to unnecessarily duplication optical elements (i.e. hyperchromatic optical element in Claim 1, optical system in Claim 1, and optical element in Claim 3). Further, Applicant appears to map 3250, 3260 and 3270 to the plurality of “laser illumination sources” in Claim 1 and also the plurality of plurality of laser illumination sources required in Claim 3. Claim 6 requires at least six laser illumination sources based on the current language. Applicant’s arguments do not acknowledge this and thus the rejections are restated above.
On page 49 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that there is support for “encoding” beams in further portions of the disclosure. Examiner is not persuaded by this argument as it does not align with claim language. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the substantive difference between encoding a laser illumination source and encoding light itself, and the claim requires the former.
On page 50 of the Remarks, Applicant points to support for the claimed element generating different images at two different viewing angles in Fig. 4A. This has been addressed above. To summarize, the DMD of Fig. 4 is not disclosed in the Specifications as integrated within the hyperchromatic optical imagining system and stands alone as a disclosed structure from “ANGULAR AND SPATIAL LIGHT MODULATOR BY SINGLE MICROMIRROR DEVICE FOR MULTI-IMAGE OUTPUT AND NEARLY-DOUBLED ETENDUE” by Hellman et al., Optics Express, volume 27, issue 15.
On pages 50-51 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the element generating different images at two different viewing angles corresponds to the diffuser of Fig. 10. This has been addressed above. To summarize, the diffuser of Fig. 10 is not disclosed in the Specifications as integrated within the hyperchromatic optical imagining system and can provide light at varying angles and not the claimed images at varying angles.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of Applicant’s election of specie and invention in 12/04/2025 Response, the remarks presented in the 5/04/2026 Response, and the originally-filed disclosure, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as the integration of disparately disclosed elements is not described in sufficient specificity. Other than the single embodiment of a hyperchromatic optical imagining system provided in Fig. 9, it is unclear how any elements from Figs. 4, 7, 8, 10-13 would be configured and operate in the claimed system. Direct substitution of the elements shown in Fig. 9 would not have been an obvious and clear modification of the embodiment, given the structure of those elements in Figs. 4, 7, 8, 10-13. The structure in Fig. 9 alone does not clearly map to the claim language as presented as it appears to show a hyperchromatic optical imagining system with a mutli-wavelength laser source impinging on a reflective, 2D display element then impinging on a reflective element with wavelength selectivity then impinging on a mirror and the observer’s eye. While the reflective element 3214 with “focal length of the hyperchromatic diverging curved mirror (3214) is wavelength-sensitive”, the mechanism by which the focal length is wavelength-selective is not discussed. It is unclear if this mirror passes certain wavelengths and reflectively focuses others or if the mirror reflectively focuses all wavelengths with focusing at lengths dependent on wavelength. The discussion of Fig. 9 does not clarify separating image in depth from sources impinging on a display but rather separating images impinging on multiple displays. In summary, the elements of the claims are not clearly mapped to the elements depicted in Fig. 9 or any other figure for their claimed structure and their claimed function.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights