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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because reference characters "26" and "28" have both been used to designate "first region See para. [0068] and [0069] in the as-filed specification filed 22 December 2023.
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 characters "26" and "28" have both been used to designate "first region." See para. [0068] and [0069] in the as-filed specification filed 22 December 2023.
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
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 6, the sentences recite “the first holographic arrangement is configured to diffract light at at least a first wavelength, wherein the second holographic arrangement is configured to diffract light at at least a second wavelength,” which is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one wavefront manipulator includes at least one holographic arrangement AND/OR at least one optical element which has a free-form surface” while its dependent claims primarily limit the claimed subject matter of the at least one holographic arrangement. In other words, the “and/or” statement creates alternative claim scopes with the dependent claims applying to only one of the alternatives, rendering them effectively moot for the other alternative and therefore improper. Claim 3 allows three (3) different scopes: including at least one holographic arrangement, including at least one optical element with a freeform surface, or including both at least one holographic arrangement and at least one optical element with a freeform surface. Dependent Claims 4-10 do not further limit every embodiment covered by Claim 3. If Claim 3 is interpreted as covering only an optical element, then Claims 4-10 do not further limit the structure and therefore fail to depend from and further limit the full scope of the claim upon which they depend.
Since the scope of Claims 3-10 cannot be ascertained, Claims 3-10 are also 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.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 3-10 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.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. See Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above in the present Office action. Since the scope of Claims 3-10 cannot be ascertained, Claims 3-10 are also 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.
With respect to Claims 6 and 9, the sentences recite “wherein a difference between the first and the second wavelength exceeds a defined limit value" and "at least two holographic elements configured to be reflective for at least a defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range” which seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the phrases “exceeds a defined limit value" and "a defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
“[W]herein a difference between the first and the second wavelength exceeds a defined limit value” is indefinite because the claim does not identify what the defined limit value is, how it is determined, or where it is defined. Without a numerical boundary, conditional expression, method of determination, or even an objective standard, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what wavelength differences fall within or outside the scope of Claim 6. “[A]t least two holographic elements configured to be reflective for at least a defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range” is also indefinite, for the claim does not provide an objective boundary for what “defined wavelength” or “defined angle of incidence range” refers to. There are no values, limits, or ways to determine these bounds, and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claimed subject matter within Claim 9. These limitations are rendered open-ended, unclear, and indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “wherein a difference between the first and the second wavelength exceeds a defined limit value" and "at least two holographic elements configured to be reflective for at least a defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range” as “wherein there is a difference between the first and the second wavelength" and "at least two holographic elements configured to be reflective.”
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karner et al. WO 2020043598 A1 (see US 20210191132 A1 for paragraph citations; herein after "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]), and
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]).
With respect to Claim 2, Karner discloses 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 11, 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) 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 discloses 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 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 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 15, Karner discloses 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 discloses 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-10, and 14 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 3, Karner discloses the optical arrangement (dual-plane HUD; [0123]) as claimed in claim 1.
Karner (fig. 8) does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the at least one wavefront manipulator includes at least one holographic arrangement and/or at least one optical element which has a free-form surface.
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 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 3, 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 3, 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]) at 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]) at at least a second wavelength (first and second plurality of wavelengths; [0032] & [0125]; e.g., as seen in fig. 9), and
wherein a difference between the first and the second wavelength exceeds a defined limit value (differences between wavelengths as illustrated in fig. 9; [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 3, wherein the at least one holographic arrangement (holographic reconstruction; fig. 1) and/or the at least one optical element are 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 3, 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 3, 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 for at least a defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range (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 3, 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 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schmale US 20100073376 A1 discloses an electronic imaging device and method of electronically rendering a wavefront 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 December 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872