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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 6/25/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 6-10, 12-17, 20 as being withdrawn, claims 18-19 as being withdrawn-currently amended, claims 1-3, 5 as being original, and claims 4, 11 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-20 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-10, 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 8/31/2023 and 1/26/2024 were considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/31/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas. The claims calculate target and evaluation values which amounts to using a mathematical algorithm, similar to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). Specifically, the claims provide a first hologram, propagate a complex light field to an image plane, modifying amplitudes by zeroing/cropping amplitude components corresponding to regions of the image, and propagate the modified complex light field back from the image plane. These limitations amount to using a mathematical algorithm or computer program to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since the method steps are shown to be well-understood, routine, and/or conventional in at least Christmas et al. (US 2023/0324705 A1), Cole et al. (US 2023/0101295 A1), Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0060564 A1) and/or Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0064690 A1), as set forth below.
It is noted that applicant should check the withdrawn claims for similar issues (see e.g. independent claim 20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s), as a whole, does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 includes the limitations “a storage medium” is not directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a storage medium under the current Office policy, may broadly cover transient medium and propagating signals (i.e. the storage medium is not limited to a non-transitory storage medium). Since a claim to a "storage medium" reasonably broadly covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media (e.g. ROM, RAM…) and transient, propagating signals (e.g. signals, carrier waves), and the current specification does not explicitly exclude such a possibility, the claim covers non-statutory subject matter. See also MPEP 2106.03(I) and (II).
M.P.E.P. 2106.03(I):
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.
It is noted that applicant should check the withdrawn claims for similar issues (see e.g. dependent claim 18).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christmas et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0324705 A1 (hereafter Christmas).
The applied reference has a common inventor and/or assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Christmas discloses a method of determining, from a first hologram of an image, a second hologram of a portion of the image, the method comprising:
providing the first hologram of the image (see at least figure 2A, element 280A, paras. [0187]-[0188]; and figure 16, steps 1602-1604, paras. [0321]-[0322]);
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, steps 1606-1610, paras. [0323]-[0324]);
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero (see at least figure 16, step 1608, paras. [0042], [0044], [0068], [0075], [0323]); and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image (see at least figure 16, steps 1614, 1616, 1620, paras. [0326]-[0328]).
Regarding claim 2, Christmas discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein
the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, see at least figure 7, element 702, para. [0241], wherein it is interpreted that the display device 702 is capable of displaying the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to display…”.) and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, see at least figure 7, elements 704 and 706, para. [0241], wherein it is interpreted that the viewing system is capable of viewing the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to view…”.) through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, see at least figure 7, element 708, para. [0241].); and
providing the first hologram comprises identifying a propagation path of a plurality of possible propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system and performing a plurality of primary iterations of a phase-retrieval algorithm, the phase-retrieval algorithm comprising transforming back and forth between the hologram plane and the image plane, via the respective propagation path, in order to form the first hologram corresponding to the image (see at least figures 2A-2C, paras. [0180]-[0206]; and figure 16, steps 1602-1604, paras. [0321]-[0322], the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm method).
The recitation “the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of the method and fails to result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, claim 2 includes further method steps, but the system the method is used for does not distinguish it from the prior art method, as the use of the method, as claimed, cannot be considered a manipulative difference from methods in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the method renders it manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Christmas discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the steps of
providing the first hologram of the image;
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane;
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero; and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image
form a second iteration of the phase-retrieval algorithm and are only performed once (see at least figure 16, step 1620, para. [0328], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 4, Christmas discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein each primary iteration of the plurality of primary iterations of the phase-retrieval algorithm comprises:
a first stage comprising determining a first complex light field at an entrance pupil of the viewing system, wherein the first complex light field results from the propagation of light of the image along at a light propagation path of a plurality of light propagation paths of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil of the viewing system (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, steps 1606-1608, para. [0323]);
a second stage comprising determining a second complex light field at a sensor plane of a sensor of the viewing system, wherein the second complex light field results from the propagation of light of the first complex light field from the entrance pupil through a lens of the viewing system and modification of the amplitude component in accordance with the image (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, step 1610, para. [0324]);
a third stage comprising determining a third complex light field at the entrance pupil, wherein the third complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the second complex light field from the sensor plane back through the lens and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, step 1614, para. [0326]);
a fourth stage comprising determining a fourth complex light field at a display plane, wherein the fourth complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the third complex light field back along the at least one light propagation of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the display device (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, steps 1616 and 1618, para. [0327]); and
extracting the first hologram from the fourth complex light field (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, as well as figure 16, step 1620, para. [0328]).
Regarding claim 5, Christmas discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein the first to fourth stages are iteratively repeated before the step of extracting the first hologram from the final iteration, and the light propagated from the display device for the second and subsequent iterations comprises the phase distribution of the fourth complex light field of the immediately preceding iteration (see at least figure 16, step 1620, para. [0328], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 11, Christmas discloses a hologram engine comprising:
a processor (see at least para. [0361]);
a storage medium storing processor-implementable instructions for controlling a processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (see at least paras. [0361]-[0362]);
a display device configured to display at least the second hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, see at least figure 7, element 702, para. [0241]); and
a pupil expander arranged such that the second hologram is viewable through the pupil expander (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, and/or 15, see at least figure 7, element 708, paras. [0241]-[0242], and/or figure 15, element 1503, para. [0316]).
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cole et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0101295 A1 (hereafter Cole).
The applied reference has a common inventor and/or assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Cole discloses a method of determining, from a first hologram of an image, a second hologram of a portion of the image, the method comprising:
providing the first hologram of the image (see at least figure 2A, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802 and 804, and associated paragraphs);
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-810, and associated paragraphs);
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero (see at least figure 8, step 808, para. [0152]); and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image (see at least figure 8, steps 814, 816, 820, and associated paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, Cole discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein
the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602, wherein it is interpreted that the display device 602 is capable of displaying the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to display…”.) and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, elements 604 and 606, wherein it is interpreted that the viewing system is capable of viewing the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to view…”.) through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608, para. [0139]); and
providing the first hologram comprises identifying a propagation path of a plurality of possible propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system and performing a plurality of primary iterations of a phase-retrieval algorithm, the phase-retrieval algorithm comprising transforming back and forth between the hologram plane and the image plane, via the respective propagation path, in order to form the first hologram corresponding to the image (see at least figures 2A-2C, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802-804, paras. [0150]-[0151], the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm method).
The recitation “the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of the method and fails to result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, claim 2 includes further method steps, but the system the method is used for does not distinguish it from the prior art method, as the use of the method, as claimed, cannot be considered a manipulative difference from methods in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the method renders it manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Cole discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the steps of
providing the first hologram of the image;
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane;
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero; and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image
form a second iteration of the phase-retrieval algorithm and are only performed once (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0157], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 4, Cole discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein each primary iteration of the plurality of primary iterations of the phase-retrieval algorithm comprises:
a first stage comprising determining a first complex light field at an entrance pupil of the viewing system, wherein the first complex light field results from the propagation of light of the image along at a light propagation path of a plurality of light propagation paths of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil of the viewing system (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-808, and associated paragraphs);
a second stage comprising determining a second complex light field at a sensor plane of a sensor of the viewing system, wherein the second complex light field results from the propagation of light of the first complex light field from the entrance pupil through a lens of the viewing system and modification of the amplitude component in accordance with the image (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 810, and associated paragraphs);
a third stage comprising determining a third complex light field at the entrance pupil, wherein the third complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the second complex light field from the sensor plane back through the lens and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 814, and associated paragraphs);
a fourth stage comprising determining a fourth complex light field at a display plane, wherein the fourth complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the third complex light field back along the at least one light propagation of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the display device (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 816 and 818, and associated paragraphs); and
extracting the first hologram from the fourth complex light field (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 820, para. [0157]).
Regarding claim 5, Cole discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein the first to fourth stages are iteratively repeated before the step of extracting the first hologram from the final iteration, and the light propagated from the display device for the second and subsequent iterations comprises the phase distribution of the fourth complex light field of the immediately preceding iteration (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0157], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 11, Cole discloses a hologram engine comprising:
a processor (see at least para. [0198]);
a storage medium storing processor-implementable instructions for controlling a processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (see at least paras. [0198]-[0199]);
a display device configured to display at least the second hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602); and
a pupil expander arranged such that the second hologram is viewable through the pupil expander (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608).
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smeeton et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0060564 A1, of record (hereafter Smeeton’564).
The applied reference has a common inventor and/or assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Smeeton’564 discloses a method of determining, from a first hologram of an image, a second hologram of a portion of the image, the method comprising:
providing the first hologram of the image (see at least figure 2A, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802 and 804, and associated paragraphs);
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-810, and associated paragraphs);
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero (see at least figure 8, step 808, para. [0162]); and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image (see at least figure 8, steps 814, 816, 820, and associated paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, Smeeton’564 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein
the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602, wherein it is interpreted that the display device 602 is capable of displaying the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to display…”.) and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, elements 604 and 606, wherein it is interpreted that the viewing system is capable of viewing the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to view…”.) through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608, para. [0148]); and
providing the first hologram comprises identifying a propagation path of a plurality of possible propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system and performing a plurality of primary iterations of a phase-retrieval algorithm, the phase-retrieval algorithm comprising transforming back and forth between the hologram plane and the image plane, via the respective propagation path, in order to form the first hologram corresponding to the image (see at least figures 2A-2C, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802-804, paras. [0160]-[0161], the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm method).
The recitation “the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of the method and fails to result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, claim 2 includes further method steps, but the system the method is used for does not distinguish it from the prior art method, as the use of the method, as claimed, cannot be considered a manipulative difference from methods in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the method renders it manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Smeeton’564 discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the steps of
providing the first hologram of the image;
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane;
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero; and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image
form a second iteration of the phase-retrieval algorithm and are only performed once (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0167], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 4, Smeeton’564 discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein each primary iteration of the plurality of primary iterations of the phase-retrieval algorithm comprises:
a first stage comprising determining a first complex light field at an entrance pupil of the viewing system, wherein the first complex light field results from the propagation of light of the image along at a light propagation path of a plurality of light propagation paths of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil of the viewing system (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-808, and associated paragraphs);
a second stage comprising determining a second complex light field at a sensor plane of a sensor of the viewing system, wherein the second complex light field results from the propagation of light of the first complex light field from the entrance pupil through a lens of the viewing system and modification of the amplitude component in accordance with the image (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 810, and associated paragraphs);
a third stage comprising determining a third complex light field at the entrance pupil, wherein the third complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the second complex light field from the sensor plane back through the lens and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 814, and associated paragraphs);
a fourth stage comprising determining a fourth complex light field at a display plane, wherein the fourth complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the third complex light field back along the at least one light propagation of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the display device (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 816 and 818, and associated paragraphs); and
extracting the first hologram from the fourth complex light field (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 820, para. [0167]).
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton’564 discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein the first to fourth stages are iteratively repeated before the step of extracting the first hologram from the final iteration, and the light propagated from the display device for the second and subsequent iterations comprises the phase distribution of the fourth complex light field of the immediately preceding iteration (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0167], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 11, Smeeton’564 discloses a hologram engine comprising:
a processor (see at least paras. [0062], [0207]);
a storage medium storing processor-implementable instructions for controlling a processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (see at least paras. [0207]-[0208]);
a display device configured to display at least the second hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602); and
a pupil expander arranged such that the second hologram is viewable through the pupil expander (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608).
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smeeton et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0064690 A1, of record (hereafter Smeeton’690).
The applied reference has a common inventor and/or assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Smeeton’690 discloses a method of determining, from a first hologram of an image, a second hologram of a portion of the image, the method comprising:
providing the first hologram of the image (see at least figure 2A, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802 and 804, and associated paragraphs);
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-810, and associated paragraphs);
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero (see at least figure 8, step 808, para. [0170]); and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image (see at least figure 8, steps 814, 816, 820, and associated paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, Smeeton’690 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein
the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602, wherein it is interpreted that the display device 602 is capable of displaying the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to display…”.) and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, elements 604 and 606, wherein it is interpreted that the viewing system is capable of viewing the first hologram, and therefore is “arranged to view…”.) through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608, para. [0154]); and
providing the first hologram comprises identifying a propagation path of a plurality of possible propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system and performing a plurality of primary iterations of a phase-retrieval algorithm, the phase-retrieval algorithm comprising transforming back and forth between the hologram plane and the image plane, via the respective propagation path, in order to form the first hologram corresponding to the image (see at least figures 2A-2C, and associated paragraphs; and figure 8, steps 802-804, paras. [0168]-[0169], the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm method).
The recitation “the method is for a system comprising a display device arranged to display the first hologram and a viewing system arranged to view the first hologram through a pupil expander providing a plurality of light propagation paths from the display device to the viewing system” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of the method and fails to result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, claim 2 includes further method steps, but the system the method is used for does not distinguish it from the prior art method, as the use of the method, as claimed, cannot be considered a manipulative difference from methods in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the method renders it manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Smeeton’690 discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the steps of
providing the first hologram of the image;
propagating a complex light field corresponding to the first hologram from a hologram plane to an image plane;
modifying amplitudes of the complex light field in the image plane by setting amplitude components of the complex light field that correspond to regions of the image that are outside of the portion of the image to be zero; and
propagating the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane thereby obtaining the second hologram of the portion of the image
form a second iteration of the phase-retrieval algorithm and are only performed once (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0175], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 4, Smeeton’690 discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein each primary iteration of the plurality of primary iterations of the phase-retrieval algorithm comprises:
a first stage comprising determining a first complex light field at an entrance pupil of the viewing system, wherein the first complex light field results from the propagation of light of the image along at a light propagation path of a plurality of light propagation paths of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil of the viewing system (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 806-808, and associated paragraphs);
a second stage comprising determining a second complex light field at a sensor plane of a sensor of the viewing system, wherein the second complex light field results from the propagation of light of the first complex light field from the entrance pupil through a lens of the viewing system and modification of the amplitude component in accordance with the image (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 810, and associated paragraphs);
a third stage comprising determining a third complex light field at the entrance pupil, wherein the third complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the second complex light field from the sensor plane back through the lens and cropping in accordance with the entrance pupil (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 814, and associated paragraphs);
a fourth stage comprising determining a fourth complex light field at a display plane, wherein the fourth complex light field results from the reverse propagation of light of the third complex light field back along the at least one light propagation of the pupil expander and cropping in accordance with the display device (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, steps 816 and 818, and associated paragraphs); and
extracting the first hologram from the fourth complex light field (see at least figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, as well as figure 8, step 820, para. [0175]).
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton’690 discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein the first to fourth stages are iteratively repeated before the step of extracting the first hologram from the final iteration, and the light propagated from the display device for the second and subsequent iterations comprises the phase distribution of the fourth complex light field of the immediately preceding iteration (see at least figure 8, step 820, para. [0175], “At least one iteration of each stage is required in accordance with this disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 11, Smeeton’690 discloses a hologram engine comprising:
a processor (see at least paras. [0038], [0206]);
a storage medium storing processor-implementable instructions for controlling a processor to carry out the method of claim 1 (see at least paras. [0206]-[0207]);
a display device configured to display at least the second hologram (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 602); and
a pupil expander arranged such that the second hologram is viewable through the pupil expander (Of the above listed figures 5A, and/or 5B, and/or 6A, and/or 7, see at least figure 6A, element 608).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,591,136 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader than or an obvious variation of over claims 1-2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,591,136 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,591,136 B2 wherein a display device displays a hologram (i.e. providing the first hologram), the first and second stages propagate a complex light field from a hologram plane to an image plane, the second and third stages modify amplitudes of the complex light field by cropping amplitude components, and the fourth and fifth stages propagate the modified complex light field back from the image plane to the hologram plane and obtain a second hologram.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,591,136 B2 wherein a display device, a viewing system and a pupil expander are recited, and see claim 5 which recites iteratively repeating the first to fourth stages and wherein second and subsequent iterations comprise a phase distribution of the fourth complex light field of an immediately preceding iteration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/30/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights