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 .
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 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.
Election/Restriction
Election of claims 35-47 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025. In the same, non-elected claims 1-34 were canceled by amendment, and claims 48-81 were newly presented.
Newly submitted claim 48-81 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly presented claims are directed to a new and distinct subcombination usable together with those of the elected claims, and has separate utility as a beam splitter. Accordingly, claims 48-81 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 35-81 are pending. Claims 1-34 were canceled by the 11/10/2025 Response. Claims 48-81 withdrawn as non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 35, 36, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 20150160530 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Han teaches a display system (Abstract, Figs. 1 and 11), comprising:
a display (source 130, waveguide 131) to generate a wavefront of light (L); and
an optical subsystem (acousto-optic modulation unit 110) having a plurality of elements (111a, b) that are macroscopically transverse-invariant (Fig. 3, being transverse periodic, see also ¶94-95, and ¶108, “in which some of the core layer 111 and the first and second cladding layers 112 and 113 have photonic crystal structures or meta-material structures”, which appears to satisfy the definition and examples disclosed by Applicant’s specification) and positioned to modulate the wavefront of light by a set of scattering events (inherent to refraction and diffraction, the latter being mediated by the acoustic wave in the material per ¶5) to form an image (as in Fig. 11), wherein at least one of the plurality of elements comprises an anisotropic material to assist in formation of the image (¶95, “In the photonic crystal structure shown in FIG. 3, a repetitive pattern may be directional. Thus, refractive index distribution by the photonic crystal structure may be anisotropic.”).
Regarding claim 36, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, and further discloses wherein the image is a virtual image that is positioned at a monocular depth different from a depth of the display (Fig. 11, showing 3D display of a floating image at a different depth than that of the display itself, considered virtual, and ¶146, “Furthermore, since the acousto-optic element array 200 may function as an optical modulator capable of phase modulation, the display apparatus 300 using the acousto-optic element array 200 in the display panel 310 may function as a holographic display apparatus by supplying computer generated holograms (CGHs) to the first and second sound-wave modulation units 150 and 170 as electric signals.”).
Regarding claim 39, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, and further discloses wherein the anisotropic material is a biaxial crystal positioned to induce negative refraction effects on the wavefront of light ( ¶95, the photonic crystal repetition may be directional, anisotropic, and therefore at least biaxial, and ¶109, “It is known that meta materials result in new phenomena such as subwavelength focusing, negative refraction, extraordinary transmission, and invisible cloaking for electromagnetic waves, sound waves, or ultrasonic waves. The above-mentioned photonic crystals and plasmonic structure may be understood as examples of meta materials.”).
Regarding claim 43, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, and further discloses wherein the anisotropic material is controlled electro-optically or piezo-electrically (¶111, Claim 14).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 36 above, in view of Rotschild (CN 103558689 B, published 9/26/2017).
Regarding claim 37, Han teaches the display system of claim 36, but does not explicitly show wherein the virtual image is viewable simultaneously by both eyes of a viewer in a continuous volume greater than 10 cm.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Note also In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Concerning the size of volume images that are reasonably comfortable for viewers, Rotschild establishes a volume image produced by an analogous holographic display (“Alternatively, the three physical dimensions of the volume image that has the same magnitude of amplitude, for example, height, width and depth of the image with, for example, each of the 10cm between 20cm and 1cm of the measurement result. Optionally, to provide larger measurement result one or more dimensions, such as 30cm, 50cm, 80cm, 100cm or more.”; “In some embodiments, the image viewing space large enough to cover both eyes of the viewer is large.”; “In some embodiments of the invention, two eyes overlap the visible space of the single hologram and the viewer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enlarge the display of Han in order to display a larger image and thus enlarge the viewable area to a reasonable viewing size for viewer comfort in accordance with the size established by Rotschild, thereby satisfying the claimed range.
Regarding claim 38, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the optical subsystem of the display system further comprises a curved element positioned to change a magnification of the image.
Official Notice is taken that using curved optics to magnify an image is exceptionally well known. Concerning the size of volume images that are reasonably comfortable for viewers, Rotschild establishes a volume image produced by an analogous holographic display (“Alternatively, the three physical dimensions of the volume image that has the same magnitude of amplitude, for example, height, width and depth of the image with, for example, each of the 10cm between 20cm and 1cm of the measurement result. Optionally, to provide larger measurement result one or more dimensions, such as 30cm, 50cm, 80cm, 100cm or more.”), and further contemplates a curved light receiving surface for performing the magnification (“In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the light receiving surface is cylindrical, optionally wall with curvature to provide image magnification. Optionally, the curvature is not symmetric.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a curved optical element to magnify the image of Han in accordance with design needs, e.g. viewer comfort, as disclosed by Rotschild using well known curved optics for performing the magnification and thus obtaining predictable enlargement.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Tabirian (US 20200150324 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, and explicitly shows wherein the anisotropic material is among a plurality of anisotropic elements (Figs. 3 and 7), but does not explicitly show the anisotropic elements each with a thickness greater than an optical wavelength of light produced by the display.
However, the thickness of the anisotropic material is known to be results effective with respect to diffraction efficiency (by which effect Han operates, as discussed above), see e.g. Tabirian (¶111, “as is well known in the art, the diffraction efficiency of regular diffractive waveplate lenses approaches approximately 100% when θ.sub.I<<π/2, where θ.sub.I is the angle of incidence, and the local period is much greater than the wavelength over the entire area of the lens, provided that the half-wave condition LΔn =λ/2 is satisfied, where L is the thickness of the regular diffractive waveplate lens and Δn is the birefringence of the anisotropic material comprising the lens”). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The general conditions of the claim having been anticipated by Han above, and the results effective nature of anisoptropic material thickness being known from Tabirian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that optimizing the thickness of the anisotropic material would be results effective toward maximizing the diffraction efficiency, thereby satisfying the claimed range.
Claim 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Meng (US 20220328796 A1, effectively filed 3/24/2020).
Regarding claim 44, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the anisotropic material is among a plurality of anisotropic elements, wherein each of the plurality of anisotropic elements is oriented such that transmission through it and reflection by it is polarization independent.
Meng explicitly shows analogous polarization sensitive metamaterials employed in display devices (Claims 2, 7, 10), and teaches quarter wave plates as an anisotropic polarization sensitive element as well that metamaterial elements can be used to the same effect (¶88-89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized polarization sensitive anisotropic elements to perform the claimed display function using polarized light and thus achieved a predictable display result.
Regarding claim 45, the modified Han teaches the display system of claim 44, and further discloses wherein the plurality of anisotropic elements are selected from a set comprising a uniaxial crystal (Figs. 3 and 7, array of 110), a biaxial crystal (Figs. 3 and 7, array of 110, in view of ¶95), graphene, a transition metal dichalcogenide, a photonic crystal (Figs. 3 and 7, array of 110), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 46, the modified Han teaches the display system of claim 44, but does not explicitly show wherein the plurality of anisotropic elements is determined by an optimization algorithm.
However, Official Notice is taken that optical optimization software is exceptionally well known in the art. Notwithstanding that the limitation does not appear to confer any structural distinction over Han, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized a complex optical system for the purpose of achieving a high quality display result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40, 42, and 47 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.
Regarding claim 40, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the anisotropic material has an angle-dependent refractive index that decreases as an incidence angle of a light ray on the anisotropic materials material increases.
Regarding claim 42, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the optical subsystem further comprises an axial GRIN element positioned to compensate an optical aberration caused by the anisotropy of the anisotropic material.
Regarding claim 47, Han teaches the display system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the optical subsystem further comprises: semi-reflective elements that fold the light at least partially onto itself, wherein the anisotropic element has a transmittance of more than 25% from one direction and is substantially reflecting of light from the other direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872