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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1-26-23 have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bailey et al. (US 2019/0056595).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey (Fig. 1-3) discloses a projector (220) arranged to project a first image (eg. corresponding to a red image portion of “RGB display content” discussed in [0052], corresponding to “a first wavelength-multiplexed hologram (e.g., a red hologram)” discussed in [0047]) and a second image (eg. corresponding to a green image portion of the “RGB display content,” with a corresponding “green hologram” discussed similarly in [0047]) using one multi-wavelength hologram (together, part of the “multiple wavelength-multiplexed holograms” discussed in [0061]), the projector comprising a display device for displaying the multi-wavelength hologram (230, called a “wavelength-multiplexed holographic combiner” in [0040], used to display the image to a user 290 as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the first image is different to the second image (the first image is only the red components of the image, while the second image is only the green components of the image), and wherein the multi-wavelength hologram is arranged for illumination by light of a first wavelength to project the first image (the red hologram is “responsive to light of a first wavelength (e.g., red light) and unresponsive to light of other wavelengths” as discussed in [0047]) and wherein the multi-wavelength hologram is further arranged for illumination by light of a second, shorter wavelength to project the second image (similarly, “responsive to light of a second wavelength (e.g., green light) and unresponsive to light of other wavelengths” as discussed in [0047], and green light is shorter wavelength than red light).
Regarding claim 2, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, wherein the first and second images are projected onto a common replay plane (“230 may include a single first layer of holographic material and all of the holograms in all of the angle-multiplexed sets of wavelength-multiplexed holograms may be included in the single first layer” discussed in [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, wherein the projector is arranged to illuminate the multi-wavelength hologram with light of the first wavelength to form the first image (in 401, “SLP directs a first light signal that comprises a first wavelength of light (e.g., a first red light signal) towards the AWMHC” discussed in [0064]) and light of the second wavelength to form the second image (in 402, “SLP directs a second light signal that comprises a second wavelength of light (e.g., a first green light signal) towards the AWMHC” discussed in [0065]), optionally wherein the projector is arranged to illuminate the multi-wavelength hologram with light of the first wavelength and light of the second wavelength substantially simultaneously (this claim limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “optionally”).
Regarding claim 10, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, wherein the projector is arranged to project a first image, a second image and a third image (corresponding to red, green, and blue images that make up the “RGB display content” discussed in [0052]) using one multi-wavelength hologram (“230 may include a single first layer of holographic material and all of the holograms in all of the angle-multiplexed sets of wavelength-multiplexed holograms may be included in the single first layer of holographic material” as discussed in [0055], see also “all angle-multiplexed sets of wavelength-multiplexed holograms may be included in a single layer of holographic material” discussed in [0061]), wherein each of said first, second and third images are different (corresponding to only the red, green, and blue images, respectively), and wherein the multi-wavelength hologram is arranged for illumination by light of a first wavelength to project the first image (eg. similar to how the red light from 320 illuminates 331 to project first image R1, as seen in Fig. 3), and is further arranged for illumination by light of a second, shorter wavelength to project the second image (eg. similar to how the green light from 320 illuminates 332 to project second image G1, as seen in Fig. 3, with green light having a shorter wavelength than red light), and is further arranged for illumination by light of a third, shortest wavelength to project the third image (eg. similar to how the blue light from 320 illuminates 333 to project third image B1, as seen in Fig. 3, with blue light having a shorter wavelength than both red and green light), optionally wherein the light of the first, second and third wavelengths comprises red, green and blue light, respectively (as discussed above, the first, second, and third wavelengths are red, green, and blue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holmes (US 2019/0243211).
Regarding claim 5, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein the multi-wavelength hologram comprises a representation of each of a first hologram, comprising a first set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the first image, and a second hologram, comprising a second set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the second image.
Holmes (Fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 12) discloses a projector arranged to project a first image and a second image (eg. corresponding to 301a and 301b, with “separate beams 301a, 301b, 301c for each wavelength channel” discussed in [0372], and “image” more specifically discussed in [0099]) using one multi-wavelength hologram (15, see also “320 displays a pixellated hologram” discussed in [0374]),
wherein the multi-wavelength hologram (15) comprises a representation of each of a first hologram (corresponding to 13 in Fig. 2, but discussed more clearly with regards to Fig. 3, “holograms for routing light 1,2 from an input fibre array 3,4 to an output fibre array 5,6” discussed in [0190]), comprising a first set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the first image (“first beam 1 is incident on, and processed by a first array, or block 13 of pixels” discussed in [0170], see also “320 is a continuous pixel array” discussed in [0374]), and a second hologram (corresponding to 14), comprising a second set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the second image (“second beam 2 is incident on and processed by a second array, or block 14 of pixels” discussed in [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bailey so the multi-wavelength hologram comprises a representation of each of a first hologram, comprising a first set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the first image, and a second hologram, comprising a second set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the second image as taught by Holmes because this can “improve the system performance” of the hologram pixels (see [0176]).
Regarding claim 6, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein each pixel of the multi-wavelength hologram comprises a combined hologram pixel value determined from corresponding first and second hologram pixel values of the first hologram and the second hologram respectively.
Holmes (Fig. 2, 7, 8, and 12) discloses a projector arranged to project a first image and a second image (eg. corresponding to 301a and 301b, with “separate beams 301a, 301b, 301c for each wavelength channel” discussed in [0372], and “image” more specifically discussed in [0099]) using one multi-wavelength hologram (“320 displays a pixellated hologram” discussed in [0374]),
wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels (“320 is a continuous pixel array” discussed in [0374]), wherein each pixel of the multi-wavelength hologram comprises a combined hologram pixel value determined from corresponding first and second hologram pixel values of the first hologram and the second hologram respectively (“for at least one said group of pixels, the method comprises providing control data indicative of two holograms to be displayed by said group and generating a combined hologram” discussed in [0040]), optionally wherein:
each combined hologram pixel value comprises an average value determined from the corresponding first and second hologram pixel values of the first hologram and the second hologram respectively, or at least one of the first hologram pixel value and the second hologram pixel value has a respective weighting applied thereto, for determining the combined hologram pixel value (this claim limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “optionally”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bailey so each pixel of the multi-wavelength hologram comprises a combined hologram pixel value determined from corresponding first and second hologram pixel values of the first hologram and the second hologram respectively as taught by Holmes because this can “improve the system performance” of the hologram pixels (see [0176]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, Bailey (Fig. 1-3) discloses a method of determining a multi-wavelength hologram (“multiple wavelength-multiplexed holograms” discussed in [0061]), said multi-wavelength hologram being configured to project a first image (eg. corresponding to a red image portion of “RGB display content” discussed in [0052], corresponding to “a first wavelength-multiplexed hologram (e.g., a red hologram)” discussed in [0047]) and a second image (eg. corresponding to a green image portion of the “RGB display content,” with a corresponding “green hologram” discussed similarly in [0047]) when it is displayed on a pixelated display device (230, called a “wavelength-multiplexed holographic combiner” in [0040], used to display the image to a user 290 as seen in Fig. 2) and illuminated by light of a first wavelength to project the first image (the red hologram is “responsive to light of a first wavelength (e.g., red light) and unresponsive to light of other wavelengths” as discussed in [0047]) and by light of a second, shorter wavelength to project the second image (similarly, “responsive to light of a second wavelength (e.g., green light) and unresponsive to light of other wavelengths” as discussed in [0047], and green light is shorter wavelength than red light), wherein the first image is different to the second image (the first image is only the red components of the image, while the second image is only the green components of the image).
However, Bailey fails to teach or suggest “pixels,” “pixel values,” “voltage drive levels,” or “modulation levels.”
Holmes (Fig. 2, 7, 8, and 12) discloses a method of determining a multi-wavelength hologram (“320 displays a pixellated hologram” discussed in [0374]), said multi-wavelength hologram being configured to project a first image and a second image (eg. corresponding to 301a and 301b, with “separate beams 301a, 301b, 301c for each wavelength channel” discussed in [0372], and “image” more specifically discussed in [0099]) when it is displayed on a pixelated display device (“the SLM displays respective holograms” discussed in [0058]) and illuminated by light of a first wavelength (eg. the light from 3, as seen in Fig. 2) to project the first image (at 6) and by light of a second wavelength (eg. the light from 4) to project the second image (at 5);
the method comprising:
i) obtaining a first hologram (eg. corresponding to pixels 13), comprising a first set of hologram pixel values corresponding to the first image (“values… for each pixel” discussed in [0174]);
ii) obtaining a second hologram (eg. corresponding to pixels 14), comprising a second set of hologram pixel values, corresponding to the second image (similarly to as discussed above, but for the second image),
vii) using a multi-wavelength drive level output for each pixel (the pixels have drive levels provided by “pixel drive circuits” as discussed in [0378]) to form the multi-wavelength hologram (the pixels form the hologram, “320 displays a pixellated hologram” discussed in [0374]).
However, while Holmes discusses pixel driving in general, Holmes fails to teach or suggests “determining a first operating range of voltage drive levels.” Holmes also discusses discrete modulation levels (eg. “discrete population of values of phase modulation” discussed in [0174]), but fails to teach or suggest “determining a first operating range of voltage drive levels,” “determining a maximum number of discrete light modulation levels,” “using the distributed discrete light modulation levels to separately represent each of the first hologram and the second hologram,” or “selecting a drive levels from the sets of pixel drive levels.”
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “iii) determining a first operating range of voltage drive levels, wherein each pixel of the display device is configurable to provide a light modulation value in a full range of light modulation values at the first wavelength, when driven within the first operating range;
iv) determining a maximum number of discrete light modulation levels for the display device and distributing those discrete light modulation levels over a voltage range that equals or exceeds said first operating range of voltage drive levels;
v) using the distributed discrete light modulation levels to separately represent each of the first hologram and the second hologram and outputting a corresponding first set of pixel drive levels for the first hologram and a second set of pixel drive levels for the second hologram; and
vi) for each pixel of the multi-wavelength hologram, selecting a first drive level from the first set of pixel drive levels, to represent the corresponding pixel of the first hologram, and selecting a second drive level from the second set of pixel drive levels, to represent the corresponding pixel of the second hologram, and outputting a multi-wavelength drive level for that pixel, based on the selected first and second drive levels” when combined with each of the other currently cited claim limitations.
Claims 12-15 are dependent upon claim 11, and so are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Bailey (Fig. 1-3) discloses a pixelated display device to display a multi-wavelength diffractive structure (called a hologram, with “multiple wavelength-multiplexed holograms” discussed in [0061]), said multi-wavelength diffractive structure being configured to represent each of a first diffractive structure and a second, different diffractive structure (eg. the first and second holograms, similarly to as discussed above).
However, Bailey fails to teach or suggest a voltage selection unit.
Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0060960) discloses a voltage selection unit (8) for driving a pixelated device (“pixels” discussed in [0111]) to display a diffractive structure (“diffraction grating: hologram” discussed in [0016]), the voltage selection unit being configured to:
a) determine a first plurality of discrete voltage levels at which the display device may be driven (“controlling the driving voltage level in a stepwise manner” discussed in [0136]), wherein each level of said first plurality of discrete voltage levels corresponds to a respective discrete light modulation value for the first diffractive structure (“the phase of each pixel can be variably modulated within a range of "0" and ".pi." in accordance with the driving voltage level” discussed in [0179]), in the full range of light modulation values thereof (eg. the full range of 0 to pi).
However, Tanaka is not directed towards a “display device” and also fails to teach or suggest “determining a correspondence between each level of said first plurality of discrete voltage levels and a respective discrete light modulation value for the second diffractive structure,” “determine a set of pixel drive values” for each diffractive structure, or “select an optimised pixel drive value that represents each of the pixel drive value for the first diffractive structure and the pixel drive value for the second diffractive structure.”
Hara et al. (US 2008/0144147) discloses a voltage selection unit configured to:
a) determine a first plurality of discrete voltage levels (“changing the driving voltage in corresponding steps” discussed in [0120]), wherein each level of said first plurality of discrete voltage levels corresponds to a respective discrete light modulation value (based on the driving voltage steps, “change the phase in desired steps in the range from 0 to .pi.” as discussed in [0120], see also “configured to drive each pixel of the phase modulator 16b by applying thereto a driving voltage corresponding to the value in the range from "0" to "1" (0 to 255 in the case of the 256-level scale)” discussed in [0216]).
However, each of the currently cited references fails to teach or suggest “b) determine a correspondence between each level of said first plurality of discrete voltage levels and a respective discrete light modulation value for the second diffractive structure, in a range exceeding the full range of light modulation values thereof;
c) determine a first set of pixel drive values for representing the first diffractive structure on the display device and a second set of pixel drive values for representing the second diffractive structure on the display device, using the first plurality of discrete voltage levels;
d) for each pixel of the display device, select an optimised pixel drive value that represents each of the pixel drive value for the first diffractive structure and the pixel drive value for the second diffractive structure” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 17-20 are dependent upon claim 16, and so are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 3 and 7-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest “pixels.”
Holmes (Fig. 2, 7, and 8) discloses a projector arranged to project a first image and a second image (corresponding to beams 1 and 2) using one multi-wavelength hologram (“generate holograms which are applied to the SLM 10” discussed in [0169]),
wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels (13 and 14, eg. a “block 13 of pixels” discussed in [0170]), wherein each pixel is configurable to provide a phase modulation value (“ability of the SLM to phase modulate” discussed in [0175]) in the range 0 to 2n at the first wavelength (“phase goes linearly from zero up to 2pi” as discussed in [0029]), within a corresponding first operating range of voltage drive levels (“discrete number of voltages available for application to each phase modulating element” discussed in [0029] and “apply voltages to an array of pixellated elements of the SLM” discussed in [0228]), and wherein the display device is configured to provide phase modulation for the multi-wavelength hologram using a predetermined maximum number of discrete phase modulation levels (eg. 8 discrete steps, as seen in Fig. 8, see also “the number of available phase levels” discussed in [0182]);
optionally wherein each pixel of the display device is also configurable to provide a phase modulation value in the range 0 to 2n at the second wavelength, within a corresponding second operating range of voltage drive levels, and wherein the projector is configured to drive one or more of the pixels to a voltage that exceeds the maximum voltage in the second operating range of voltage drive levels (this claim limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “optionally”).
However, Bailey and Holmes still fail to teach or suggest the projector further comprising a display driver configured to distribute the discrete phase modulation levels over a voltage range that equals or exceeds said first operating range of voltage drive levels.
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “a display driver configured to distribute the discrete phase modulation levels over a voltage range that equals or exceeds said first operating range of voltage drive levels” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Bailey discloses a projector as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest a processor arranged to, for a selected pixel of the display device, obtain at least a first pixel drive level for the first hologram and obtain at least a second pixel drive level for the second hologram, and determine a multi-wavelength pixel drive level for that pixel of the display device, based on the first and second pixel drive levels.
Christmas (US 2020/0150590) discloses (Fig. 1) a projector arranged to project a first image and a second image (eg. corresponding to different color hologram images, “a plurality of different colour (e.g. red, green and blue) holographic reconstructions are superimposed” discussed in [0033], and “holographic reconstruction itself may be referred to as an image” more specifically discussed in [0007]) using one multi-wavelength hologram (each is combined in “one common spatial light modulator” as discussed in [0033]), comprising:
a processor (“processor” discussed in [0037]) arranged to, for a selected pixel of the display device, obtain at least a first pixel drive level for the first hologram (“the pixel data corresponding to one pixel of the first hologram” as discussed in [0110]) and obtain at least a second pixel drive level (eg. corresponding to “light processing function pixel values” discussed in [0118]), and determine a multi-wavelength pixel drive level for that pixel of the display device, based on the first and second pixel drive levels (“combines the hologram pixel value with light processing function pixel values for a pixel to output a combined pixel value for driving a respective pixel” discussed in [0118]),
optionally wherein the multi-wavelength pixel drive level is determined based on a best fit between the first pixel drive level for the first hologram and the second pixel drive level for the second hologram (this claim limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “optionally”).
However, Christmas still fails to teach or suggest the second pixel drive level is a “second pixel drive level for the second hologram.”
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “obtain at least a first pixel drive level for the first hologram and obtain at least a second pixel drive level for the second hologram, and determine a multi- wavelength pixel drive level for that pixel of the display device, based on the first and second pixel drive levels” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 8 and 9 are dependent upon claim 7, and so would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gale et al. (US 2020/0333745) and Ishii et al. (US 2021/0026135) disclose a display with a multi-wavelength hologram (“multiple wavelengths with a single hologram” discussed in [0140] of Gale, and “superimposing multiple wavelength holograms into a single layer” discussed in [0064] of Ishii).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623