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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see rejections below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, and 8-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) or embodiments applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In order to advance prosecution, claim 1 as amended further specifies that the spatial light modulator is a nano-antenna spatial light modulator including one or more nano-antennas. Applicant submits that neither Futterer nor Xue teaches a nano-antenna spatial light modulator including one or more nano-antennas. Applicant submits that a nano-antenna spatial light modulator including one or more nano-antennas may achieve functions not achievable by traditional optics, e.g., large viewing angle (paragraphs [0036-0037] of Applicant's published application)," the Examiner traverses.
Futterer explicitly discloses the following limitation(s): the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a nano-antenna spatial light modulator (compound spatial light modulator of high resolution generating sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene; [0174-178]) including one or more nano-antennas (two controllable liquid crystal gratings comprised of light-deflecting means 410 & 420 as seen in fig. 1a; [0168], [0181-182]). See § 103 rejection for Claim 1 below for further details. Examiner reminds the applicant that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131.
Futterer also explicitly discloses “create a large apex angle and thus a large numerical aperture (NA) for viewing the reconstructed scene” ([0034]), “provision of image contents in a large volume of view is characterized by a combination” ([0085]), etc. Examiner reminds that applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, and 8-19 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.
With respect to Claims 1 and 16, “the eyepiece arranged such that an optical distance between the spatial light modulator and a main plane of the eyepiece is greater than a focal length of the eyepiece” is indefinite because “main plane of the eyepiece” is unclear and could refer to multiple different planes of the eyepiece, e.g., front principal plane, rear principal plane, or another optical reference plane. This limitation(s) (i.e., “an optical distance between the spatial light modulator and a main plane of the eyepiece is greater than a focal length of the eyepiece”) includes relative terminology, for it only defines the relationship in comparative, relative terms without providing an objective standard for determining where the boundary lies. The recited limitation does not define how to determine the optical distance, from where the measurement is taken, which “main plane” is utilized, how these values are measured, etc. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed conditional expression.
Furthermore, “wherein the spatial light modulator… comprising an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm” is indefinite, for “a dimension” is unclear and could refer to width, height, thickness, diagonal length, radius, or another measurement of the active display area. “2 mm” is also ambiguous because it is unclear whether “mm” refers to millimeters or micrometers. This claim limitation(s) fails to clearly define what parameter is being measured and what unit of measurement is being utilized. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope of these limitations, the recited claims are indefinite pursuant 35 USC § 112(b).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an optical system and method of forming the same.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer US 20160313556 A1 in view of another embodiment of Futterer and in combination with Urey et al. US 20170299870 A1 (herein after "Urey").
With respect to Claim 1, Futterer discloses an optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) comprising:
a light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) configured to generate a light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]), the light beam ([0174]) being coherent or partially coherent (exhibits coherence; [0174]); and
a spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) configured to modulate a phase (wave front 710; [0174]) of the light beam (light emitted by light source which has a plane wave front 710 which is modulated by spatial light modulator 200; [0174]); and
an eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) for directing the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]) to an eye of a viewer (fig. 1b),
wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a nano-antenna spatial light modulator (compound spatial light modulator of high resolution generating sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene; [0174-178]) including one or more nano-antennas (two controllable liquid crystal gratings comprised of light-deflecting means 410 & 420 as seen in fig. 1a; [0168], [0181-182]).
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the eyepiece arranged such that an optical distance between the spatial light modulator and a main plane of the eyepiece is greater than a focal length of the eyepiece; the spatial light modulator comprising an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm.
However, in another embodiment (fig. 3), Futterer further teaches an eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]) arranged such that an optical distance (as seen in fig. 3) between the spatial light modulator (controllable spatial light modulator SLM 200; [0191]) and a main plane of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]; fig. 3) is greater than a focal length (optical distance between SLM 200 and main plane of lens 800 is greater than the focal length of lens 800; as seen in fig. 3) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical features of an optical distance between an SLM and main plane of a magnifying lens being greater than the magnifying lens’ focal length, for the purpose of generating a magnified virtual light modulator image, magnifying a controllable spatial light modulator, and optimizing generated reconstruction sequence of 3D scenes, as taught by Futterer ([0186-190]).
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the spatial light modulator comprising an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Urey teaches an apparatus for generating a coherent beam illumination via near-to-eye display devices ([0002]), wherein a near-to-eye display device (100; [0114]) includes spatial light modulators (SLM 110; [0114], spatial light modulator and useful portion of exit pupil plane; [0621]) comprising an active display area (useful portion of exit pupil plane ideally includes virtual-scene wave and nothing else; [0145], [0626]) having a dimension of smaller than 2 mm, a typical value being 1 mm ([0626]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) to include the technical feature of a useful portion of an exit pupil plane within an SLM having a dimension of less than 2mm, for the purpose of producing sharp retinal images of objects and acquiring images having an infinite depth of focus, as taught by Urey ([0626]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale an active display area of an SLM to be less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 3, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1.
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the spatial light modulator has a pixel size of less than 2 microns.
However, Urey further teaches an apparatus for generating a coherent beam illumination via near-to-eye display devices ([0002]), wherein a near-to-eye display device (100; [0114]) includes spatial light modulators (SLM 110; [0114], spatial light modulator and useful portion of exit pupil plane; [0621]) comprising submicron pixels ([0253]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical feature of an SLM having a submicron pixel size, for the purpose of sampling and displaying 2D ideal analog complex-valued SLM transmittance on an SLM, as taught by Urey ([0253]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale a pixel size of an SLM to be less than 2 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 4, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is configured to generate a reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) based on a hologram (sub-holograms generated with SLM 200; [0174]) loaded onto the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 5, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 4, wherein a distance (fig. 1a-2) between the reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) and the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is less than the focal length (fig. 1b; [0177]) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 9, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, further comprising:
an eye tracking sub-system (tracking device 600; [0173]) for tracking a movement (tracked to the movements of the eye pupil; [0173]) of the eye of the viewer (observer eye 1000; [0177]); and
a scanning sub-system (light-deflecting device 400; [0180]) in electrical connection ([0173] & [0180]) with the eye tracking sub-system (tracking device 600; [0173]);
wherein the scanning sub-system (light-deflecting device 400; [0180]) is configured to adjust (light-deflecting device 400 comprises two controllable light-deflecting means 410, 420; [0168] & [0173]; fig. 1a) the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) based on the movement of the eye (tracked to the movements of the eye pupil; [0173]) of the viewer (observer eye 1000; [0177]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 11, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) comprises one or more optical see-through elements (magnifying lens 530 fulfils the function of a field lens; [0174] & multiple lenses of magnifying lens system; [0177]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 12, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200 through light-deflecting device 400 comprises two controllable light-deflecting means 410, 420; [0168] & [0181]) comprises an array of nano antennas (multiple segments of controllable liquid crystal gratings comprised of light-deflecting means 410 & 420 as seen in fig. 1a; [0181-182]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 13, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a transmissive spatial light modulator (modulator cells of spatial light modulator can emit light by themselves controllably or work in transmissive or reflective mode to modulate light controllably; [0032]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 14, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a reflective spatial light modulator (modulator cells of spatial light modulator can emit light by themselves controllably or work in transmissive or reflective mode to modulate light controllably; [0032]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 15, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) is a laser source or a light emitting diode (laser diodes for illuminating an SLM for holographic encoding and light-emitting diodes; [0093]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
With respect to Claim 16, Futterer teaches a method of forming an optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]), the method comprising:
providing a light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) configured to generate a light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]), the light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]) being coherent or partially coherent (exhibits coherence; [0174]);
providing a spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) configured to modulate a phase (wave front 710; [0174]) of the light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]); and
arranging an eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) for directing the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]) to an eye of a viewer (fig. 1b),
wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a nano-antenna spatial light modulator (compound spatial light modulator of high resolution generating sub-holograms with different views of a three-dimensional scene; [0174-178]) including one or more nano-antennas (two controllable liquid crystal gratings comprised of light-deflecting means 410 & 420 as seen in fig. 1a; [0168], [0181-182]).
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the eyepiece arranged such that an optical distance between the spatial light modulator and a main plane of the eyepiece is greater than a focal length of the eyepiece; the spatial light modulator comprising an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm.
However, in another embodiment (fig. 3), Futterer further teaches an eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]) arranged such that an optical distance (as seen in fig. 3) between the spatial light modulator (controllable spatial light modulator SLM 200; [0191]) and a main plane of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]; fig. 3) is greater than a focal length (optical distance between SLM 200 and main plane of lens 800 is greater than the focal length of lens 800; as seen in fig. 3) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 800; [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical features of an optical distance between an SLM and main plane of a magnifying lens being greater than the magnifying lens’ focal length, for the purpose of generating a magnified virtual light modulator image, magnifying a controllable spatial light modulator, and optimizing generated reconstruction sequence of 3D scenes, as taught by Futterer ([0186-190]).
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the spatial light modulator comprising an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Urey teaches an apparatus for generating a coherent beam illumination via near-to-eye display devices ([0002]), wherein a near-to-eye display device (100; [0114]) includes spatial light modulators (SLM 110; [0114], spatial light modulator and useful portion of exit pupil plane; [0621]) comprising an active display area (useful portion of exit pupil plane ideally includes virtual-scene wave and nothing else; [0145], [0626]) having a dimension of smaller than 2 mm, a typical value being 1 mm ([0626]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) to include the technical feature of a useful portion of an exit pupil plane within an SLM having a dimension of less than 2mm, for the purpose of producing sharp retinal images of objects and acquiring images having an infinite depth of focus, as taught by Urey ([0626]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale an active display area of an SLM to be less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 18, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is configured to generate a reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) based on a hologram (sub-holograms generated with SLM 200; [0174]) loaded onto the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 19, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein a distance between the reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) and the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is less than the focal length of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]; fig. 1a-2 of Futterer).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2112.02.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer US 20160313556 A1 in view of another embodiment of Futterer and in combination with Urey et al. US 20170299870 A1 (herein after "Urey"), and further in view of another embodiment of Futterer.
With respect to Claim 2, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the light beam ([0174]) is incident along a normal axis (aligned with e.g., axis of wave front 710; fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) perpendicular to an optical display area ([0173]) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]);
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the normal axis (fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is not parallel to a principal axis of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]).
However, in another embodiment of Futterer (fig. 21), Futterer further teaches a normal axis (fig. 21) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0255]) not being parallel to a principal axis (as seen in fig. 21) of an eyepiece (collimation lens 120; [0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey to include the technical feature of adjusting an eyepiece to not be parallel to an SLM, for the purpose of combining a function of anamorphic stretching with a function of deflecting rays or a wave field to achieve a space-saving folding of an optical path to keep a number of components to a minimum, and thus, reducing the number of active optical elements by optimizing optical design of a system, as taught by Futterer ([0258-249).
With respect to Claim 8, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, and the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the optical system further comprises: a spatial filter configured to remove zero-order diffraction of the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
However, in another embodiment, Futterer (fig. 22) further teaches an aperture mask 590 configured to filter out unwanted diffraction orders generated by the grid of the SLM of a light modulator unit 260 ([0260]), and thus, the zeroth diffraction order can be suppressed with the help of suitable absorbing or filtering means (i.e., filtering by aperture mask 590) so that it does not proceed to the observer eye ([0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey to include the technical feature of disposing an aperture mask for filtering unwanted components and zero-order diffraction of modulated light, for the purpose of filtering high spatial frequencies of an SLM in order to have the viewing window appear without neighboring higher diffraction orders, and enabling use of fixed or variable diffraction gratings with low diffraction efficiency in light-deflecting means, as taught by Futterer ([0068-70] & [0215]).
With respect to Claim 10, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, and the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the optical system further comprises: an attenuator configured to reduce an energy of the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
However, in another embodiment, Futterer (fig. 31) further teaches a micro-lens array 290 configured to improve energy efficiency of an SLM 200 ([0346]), for the individual lenses of the micro-lens array 290 concentrate light to modulator cells of the SLM 200, and the transitional regions between the modulator cells receive as little light as possible so that they cannot generate any disturbing stray light; the light modulated by the modulator cells is expanded by the lenses of the micro-lens array 290 and passes through a flat front light unit 150 as a modulated wave front 240 ([0347]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey to include the technical feature of disposing a micro-lens array for reducing energy of modulated light, for the purpose of increasing the luminous efficacy of an SLM and/or reduce edge effects in transitional regions between individual modulator cells of an SLM, as taught by Futterer ([0124-126] & [0346-347]).
With respect to Claim 17, Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the beam ([0174]) is incident along a normal axis of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) perpendicular to an optical display area ([0173]) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]);
Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the normal axis (fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is not parallel to a principal axis of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]).
However, in another embodiment of Futterer (fig. 21), Futterer further teaches a normal axis (fig. 21) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0255]) not being parallel to a principal axis (as seen in fig. 21) of an eyepiece (collimation lens 120; [0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2 in view of fig. 3) in combination with Urey to include the technical feature of adjusting an eyepiece to not be parallel to an SLM, for the purpose of combining a function of anamorphic stretching with a function of deflecting rays or a wave field to achieve a space-saving folding of an optical path to keep a number of components to a minimum, and thus, reducing the number of active optical elements by optimizing optical design of a system, as taught by Futterer ([0258-249).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cheng et al. US 20190018245 A1 discloses methods, devices, and systems for illuminating spatial light modulators substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights