DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "With regard to the windshield of a vehicle or the observation window…Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the objection to the drawings should be reconsidered and withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that Claim 16 positively recites a projection surface, a windshield, a vehicle, and an observation window as distinct elements, for these recitations are imposing structural and contextual limitations. Even if the projection surface could be implemented as a windshield or observation window in different embodiments, the assertion that these are mere, optional embodiments of a single projection surface improperly imports limitations into the claim. Claim 16 recites “wherein the projection surface is a surface of a windshield of a vehicle or an observation window.” Examiner submits that there is no disclosure illustrating a vehicle and that the claim language requires these elements, yet the drawings omit these elements entirely. This creates ambiguity as to whether the windshield/observation window are required structural components or they are merely intended uses of a generic projection surface. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Examiner reminds the applicant that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Claims 1, 2, 11 to 13, 15, and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Patent Application Publication No. 2020043598 to Karner (hereinafter "Karner"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection because the reference does not describe each and every element as set forth in the claims, either expressly or inherently," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot. Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In other words, Karner states that the quarter-wave plate…at least one holographic arrangement, as recited in claim 1. Thus, the quarter-wave plate 760 cannot correspond to the at least one wavefront manipulator of claim 1," the Examiner traverses. A quarter-wave plate manipulates the wavefront by introducing a phase shift between orthogonal components of light, as described in Karner (projection engine may further comprise a quarter-wave plate arranged to receive light of first picture component and light of second polarisation component such that light of pictures projected onto window of vehicle is circularly polarized; [0025]). Examiner reminds the applicant that Karner is explicitly directed to a holographic projector and holographic projection system ([0001]). Some embodiments relate to a head-up display and a head-mounted display (head-up display may comprise glare trap window and quarter-wave plate is a coating on glare trap window; [0001] and [0026]). Some embodiments relate to a dual-plane head-up display and a method of projecting images to a first virtual image plane and second virtual image plane at least partially overlapping the first virtual image plane ([0001]). Examiner also reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to the applicant's argument that "As discussed above, Kamer describes a holographic projector 410…Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) be reconsidered and withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot. Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because reference character “5” has been used to designate the projection surface, the windshield, and the observation window.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the windshield, vehicle, and observation window must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has been used to designate the projection surface, the windshield, and the observation window.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, and 4-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claims 1, 5, 11, 13-14, and 17, the limitation "the wavefront manipulator" is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), for “at least one wavefront manipulator” is both previously recited and subsequently referred to in Claims 1 and 17. It is unclear whether there can only be one wavefront manipulator or if there can be multiple wavefront manipulators comprised in the optical arrangement, and with only one wavefront manipulator being required by the claim limitations.
With respect to Claim 18, the recitation “wherein he first wavelength differs from the second wavelength by at least 10 nanometers” appears to contain a misspelling error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karner et al. WO 2020043598 A1 (see US 20210191132 A1 for paragraph citations; herein after "Karner") in view of other embodiments of Karner.
With respect to Claim 1, Karner discloses an optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) for a head-up display (fig. 8) on a projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8), the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) comprising:
a picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]), which includes at least one picture generating unit (first surface 810a or second surface 810b; [0123]); and
at least one wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) arranged in a beam path (fig. 8) between the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and the projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8),
wherein the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) is configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in at least two different image planes (formed at different distances from the viewing plane; [0124]; fig. 8),
wherein the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) has at least a first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) and a second region (second surface 810b; [0123]),
wherein the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) are configured in combination with one another (quarter-wave plate 760 converts both s-polarized light and p-polarized light into circularly polarized light, so windscreen 430 is equally reflective to received light of first picture component and received light of second picture component, first picture component is formed on first surface 810a and second picture component is formed on second surface 810b; [0122-123]) to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in a first image plane (dual-plane; [0123]; arranged to display image content at two virtual planes; [0030]) from pictures generated in the first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in a second image plane (dual-plane; [0123-124]; fig. 8) from pictures generated in the second region (second surface 810b; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]), and
Karner does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the at least one wavefront manipulator includes at least one holographic arrangement.
However, in another embodiment, Karner (fig. 1) further teaches a vehicle comprising the HUD (fig. 8) and a holographic projection system installed in a vehicle to provide the HUD ([0131]), wherein the picture generating unit comprises a holographic projector in which the picture is a holographic reconstruction of a computer-generated hologram ([0010]). The holographic reconstruction is created within the zeroth diffraction order of an overall window defined by the SLM ([0136]), and each optical element within the HUD can have optical powers at a plurality of wavelengths (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9). Each plurality of wavelengths may be used to form a white or pseudo-white picture component, wherein the optical element may be coated such that the R, G and B wavelengths are reflected by the first surface and the R′, G′ and B′ wavelengths are transmitted to the second surface ([0125]). Karner further teaches a phase-only holographic lens and an amplitude-only holographic lens of fig. 1 being utilized for holographic reconstruction ([0093]), wherein computer-generated holograms can be displayed by an SLM that modulates phase and each computer-generated hologram forms a holographic reconstruction ([0098] & [0142]). Karner also teaches the optical elements having a first and second surface wherein the first surface is reflective in a first polarization direction and transmissive in a second polarization direction ([0018]), wherein light forming pictures may be incident upon the window at Brewster's angle ([0128]) and the differences between wavelengths is illustrated in fig. 9 ([0125]). The holographic reconstruction can also be color, wherein the different holograms for each color are displayed on a different area of the same SLM and then combining to form the composite color image ([0137]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further include the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 2, Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) and the second region (second surface 810b; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) have a common picture generator plane (different image/light-receiving surfaces of a common picture generating unit; [0123]), OR
wherein the first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) has a first picture generator plane (first surface 810a and second surface 810b may be parts of different picture generating units; [0123]) and the second region (second surface 810b; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) has a second picture generator plane ([0123]; fig. 8), and wherein the first picture generator plane (first surface 810a and second surface 810b may be parts of different picture generating units; [0123]) and the second picture generator plane ([0123]; fig. 8) differ from one another (different picture generating units; [0123]).
With respect to Claim 4, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) is configured to diffract light (zeroth diffraction order; [0136]) at a plurality of wavelengths (plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further include the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 5, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) includes at least a first holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) and a second holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction wherein computer-generated holograms can be displayed, each computer-generated hologram forms a holographic reconstruction; [0093-98] & [0142]), and
wherein the first holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) is configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]; fig. 8) in the first image plane (dual-plane; [0123-124]; fig. 8) from pictures generated in the first region (first surface 810a; [0123]; fig. 8) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]; fig. 8) and the second holographic arrangement ([0093-98] & [0142]) is configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]; fig. 8) in the second image plane (dual-plane; [0123-124]; fig. 8) from pictures generated in the second region (second surface 810b; [0123]; fig. 8) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]; fig. 8).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 6, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) is configured to diffract light (zeroth diffraction order; [0136]) of at least a first wavelength (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9),
wherein the second holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction wherein computer-generated holograms can be displayed, each computer-generated hologram forms a holographic reconstruction; [0093-98] & [0142]) is configured to diffract light (zeroth diffraction order; [0136]) of at least a second wavelength (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9), and
wherein the first wavelength differs from the second wavelength (differences between wavelengths as illustrated in fig. 9; each plurality of wavelengths used to form white or pseudo-white picture component, e.g., first picture component comprises red (R), green (G) and blue (B) components such as wavelengths of 640, 510 and 440 nm, and second picture component comprises red (R′), green (G′) and blue (B′) components such as wavelengths 660, 530 and 460 nm, wavelengths differing by 10 to 20 nanometers; [0125]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 7, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) is configured to be reflective and/or transmissive (comprising optical elements having a first and second surface wherein the first surface is reflective in a first polarization direction and transmissive in a second polarization direction; [0018]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 8, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) includes at least two holographic elements (phase-only holographic lens and amplitude-only holographic lens being utilized for holographic reconstruction; [0093]; fig. 1) arranged directly in succession in the beam path (fig. 8).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technical feature of rearranging the holographic lenses (fig. 1) directly in succession in the beam path provided in fig. 8 of Karner, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 9, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) includes at least two holographic elements (phase-only holographic lens and amplitude-only holographic lens being utilized for holographic reconstruction; [0093]; fig. 1) configured to be reflective (each optical element having a first and second surface wherein the first surface is reflective in a first polarization direction, wherein light forming pictures may be incident upon the window at Brewster's angle; [0018] & [0128]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 10, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]; fig. 8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) includes at least two holographic elements (phase-only holographic lens and amplitude-only holographic lens being utilized for holographic reconstruction; [0093]; fig. 1),
wherein at least one holographic element (phase-only holographic lens or amplitude-only holographic lens; fig. 1) includes a plurality of holograms arranged one on top of another as a stack (different holograms for each color are displayed on a different area of the same SLM and then combining to form the composite color image; [0137]), OR
wherein at least a holographic element (phase-only holographic lens or amplitude-only holographic lens; fig. 1) includes at least one hologram recorded with at least two (fig. 9) defined wavelengths (each plurality of wavelengths used to form a white or pseudo-white picture component, wherein optical element may be coated such that R, G and B wavelengths are reflected by first surface and R′, G′ and B′ wavelengths are transmitted to the second surface; [0125]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further combine the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 11, Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) is configured to spectrally separate images of the different image planes or to separate the images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) by generating different polarization states (quarter-wave plate 760 converts both s-polarized light and p-polarized light into circularly polarized light, so windscreen 430 is equally reflective to received light of first picture component and received light of second picture component, first picture component is formed on first surface 810a and second picture component is formed on second surface 810b; [0122-123]) for various image planes (different image/light-receiving surfaces, first surface 810a and second surface 810b may be parts of different picture generating units; [0123]; fig. 8).
With respect to Claim 12, Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) includes a plurality of picture generating units (different picture generating units; [0123]).
With respect to Claim 13, Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) includes a plurality of holographic arrangements which are each configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in a defined image plane (first virtual image and second virtual image are formed at different distances from the viewing plane; [0124]).
With respect to Claim 14, Karner discloses the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) includes a plurality of optical elements (wave plate 760 and mirror 822; [0122-124]) and are each configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in at least a defined image plane (formed at different distances from the viewing plane; [0124]; fig. 8).
Karner (fig. 1) does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the wavefront manipulator includes a plurality of optical elements which have a free-form surface.
However, in another embodiment, Karner (fig. 6) further teaches first and second picture components having a first and second surface (621a, 621b; [0120]) of a first mirror, wherein the first surface and second surface may be different freeform optical surfaces ([0120]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 1) to include the technical feature of providing a plurality of optical elements comprising freeform optical surfaces, for the purpose of allowing each light channel to be individually tuned to reduce aberrations and correct for distortions caused by the complex curvature of the window, as taught by Karner ([0020]).
With respect to Claim 15, Karner teaches the head-up display ([0123]), comprising: a projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8); and an optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 8).
With respect to Claim 16, Karner teaches the head-up display as claimed in claim 15, wherein the projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8) is a surface of a windshield of a vehicle or an observation window (windscreen 430 of a vehicle; [0031] & [0105]; fig. 8).
With respect to Claim 17, Karner discloses an optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) for a head-up display (fig. 8) on a projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8), the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) comprising:
a picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]), which includes at least one picture generating unit (first surface 810a or second surface 810b; [0123]); and
at least one wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) arranged in a beam path (fig. 8) between the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and the projection surface (windscreen 430; fig. 8),
wherein the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) is configured to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in at least two different image planes (formed at different distances from the viewing plane; [0124]; fig. 8),
wherein the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) has at least a first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) and a second region (second surface 810b; [0123]),
wherein the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and the wavefront manipulator (quarter-wave plate 760 and second mirror 822; fig. 8) are configured in combination with one another (quarter-wave plate 760 converts both s-polarized light and p-polarized light into circularly polarized light, so windscreen 430 is equally reflective to received light of first picture component and received light of second picture component, first picture component is formed on first surface 810a and second picture component is formed on second surface 810b; [0122-123]) to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in a first image plane (dual-plane; [0123]; arranged to display image content at two virtual planes; [0030]) from pictures generated in the first region (first surface 810a; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]) and to generate virtual images (first virtual image and second virtual image; [0124]) in a second image plane (dual-plane; [0123-124]; fig. 8) from pictures generated in the second region (second surface 810b; [0123]) of the picture generating device (picture generating units comprising first surface 810a and second surface 810b; [0123]),
Karner does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the at least one wavefront manipulator includes at least one optical element which has a free-form surface, and wherein the at least one optical element is configured to be reflective and/or transmissive.
However, in another embodiment, Karner (fig. 1) further teaches a vehicle comprising the HUD (fig. 8) and a holographic projection system installed in a vehicle to provide the HUD ([0131]), wherein the picture generating unit comprises a holographic projector in which the picture is a holographic reconstruction of a computer-generated hologram ([0010]). The holographic reconstruction is created within the zeroth diffraction order of an overall window defined by the SLM ([0136]), and each optical element within the HUD can have optical powers at a plurality of wavelengths (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9). Each plurality of wavelengths may be used to form a white or pseudo-white picture component, wherein the optical element may be coated such that the R, G and B wavelengths are reflected by the first surface and the R′, G′ and B′ wavelengths are transmitted to the second surface ([0125]). Karner further teaches a phase-only holographic lens and an amplitude-only holographic lens of fig. 1 being utilized for holographic reconstruction ([0093]), wherein computer-generated holograms can be displayed by an SLM that modulates phase and each computer-generated hologram forms a holographic reconstruction ([0098] & [0142]). Karner also teaches the optical elements having a first and second surface wherein the first surface is reflective in a first polarization direction and transmissive in a second polarization direction ([0018]), wherein light forming pictures may be incident upon the window at Brewster's angle ([0128]) and the differences between wavelengths is illustrated in fig. 9 ([0125]). The holographic reconstruction can also be color, wherein the different holograms for each color are displayed on a different area of the same SLM and then combining to form the composite color image ([0137]).
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 dual-plane HUD of Karner (fig. 8) to further include the technical features of providing a holographic reconstruction, as taught by Karner (fig. 1), comprising diffraction, a plurality of wavelengths and holograms, and reflective/transmissive polarization properties, for the purpose of minimal modification to the picture generating unit, providing a balanced system, providing composite color holographic images, and delivering a much greater contrast ratio than currently available competing technologies due to the efficiency of the holographic process and its inherent suitability for use with a laser light source, as taught by Karner ([0010], [0018], [0024], and [0137]).
With respect to Claim 18, Karner (fig. 8) in view of another embodiment (fig. 1) of Karner teaches the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 6, wherein he first wavelength differs from the second wavelength (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9) by at least 10 nanometers (each plurality of wavelengths used to form white or pseudo-white picture component, e.g., first picture component comprises red (R), green (G) and blue (B) components such as wavelengths of 640, 510 and 440 nm, and second picture component comprises red (R′), green (G′) and blue (B′) components such as wavelengths 660, 530 and 460 nm, wavelengths differing by 10 to 20 nanometers; [0125]; fig. 9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 27 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights