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 03 August 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The claimed invention reduces ghosting in a holographic head-up display using a waveguide pupil replicator by partitioning a target image into portions and displaying a sub-hologram for each portion on a different sub-area of a display device," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "The claims require the use of sub-holograms of separate regions of an image to be projected. As noted above, the claimed invention involves treating a target image as a sum of parts, notionally breaking the target image up into parts, i.e., at least a first region and a separate second region, and uses separate sub-holograms corresponding to each. This is different from the case," the Examiner traverses. Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance, for applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Kollin relates to near-eye holographic systems that use a single undivided hologram for image formation. The Office relies nearly entirely on Kollin in its rejection," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 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). Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance, for applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Kollin does not anticipate claim 1… Kollin does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not teach the claimed partitioning of image into adjoining sub- holograms… Kollin does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not teach the claimed relationship between the hologram and the aperture of the viewing system… For analogous reasons, Kollin does not anticipate claim 10 or claim 11… New claims 16-19 are added to depend from claim 11 and recite various features described throughout the specification as filed. These claims are patentable for at least the reasons described above," the Examiner traverses. Please see previous response to arguments above. Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance, for applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Drawings
The applicant' s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 16, “method of claim 11, wherein the first region of the target image adjoins the second region of the image” is indefinite, for there is no “target image” recited in Claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “the target image” in Claim 16 as “the image.”
With respect to Claim 18, “method of claim 11, wherein the method forms a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront formed by the display device, arranged in an array, wherein the array comprises at least one replica of the first holographic sub-wavefront, alternated with at least one replica of the second holographic sub-wavefront” is indefinite, for there is no “first holographic sub-wavefront” nor “second holographic sub-wavefront” recited in Claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “wherein the array comprises at least one replica of the first holographic sub-wavefront, alternated with at least one replica of the second holographic sub-wavefront” in Claim 18 as “wherein the array comprises at least one replica of the holographic wavefront.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within methods of calculating a hologram for a holographic projection system and holographic projection.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollin et al. US 20180120563 A1 (herein after "Kollin") in view of Payne et al. US 6760135 B1 (herein after "Payne").
With respect to Claim 1, Kollin discloses a holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) for projection of an image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]) having a first region (WGCH 208 having more regions; [0027]) and a separate second region (at the PRH, light beam splits into two beams; [0025]; fig. 2), the holographic projector (the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02) comprising:
a display device (display device 100, holographic display systems representative of right-eye and left-eye 102R and 102L described in more detail with reference to figs. 2-7; [0015] & [0021]) arranged to display the hologram (figs. 2-7; [0015] & [0021]) and to form a holographic wavefront by spatially modulating light (digital dynamic hologram configured to receive the light and spatially modulate the light for coupling; [0052]) in accordance with the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) displayed thereon;
a waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) having: an input (diverging light; [0026]) arranged to receive the holographic wavefront (fig. 2); and a first surface (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of WG 202; fig. 2) arranged to waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) the holographic wavefront therebetween (fig. 2), wherein the first surface (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) is partially reflective-transmissive (light coupled and transmitted into WG 202 through top surface, light propagates through waveguide by reflecting from top surface; [0026]; as seen in fig. 2) such that a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204 replicated by pupil replicating holograms/PRH 210 of WG 202; [0026]) are emitted therefrom (fig. 2);
wherein a size of the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is less than a size (pixel size of the LRAD could be 10 to 100 times larger than the DDH pixel size e.g., 100's of μm; [0013]) of an entrance pupil (aperture formed by low resolution amplitude display/LRAD 206; [0026]) of a viewing system (eye boxes; [0026]) for receiving the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) from the first surface (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) of the waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]).
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a hologram engine arranged to provide a hologram comprising a first sub-hologram of the first region of the image adjoining a second sub-hologram of the second region of the image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Payne teaches a holographic display (figs. 1-8) comprising: a light source; an EASLM in the path of the light source and arranged in use to be driven successively by a set of sub-holograms which together correspond to a holographic image; light guiding means arranged to guide light output from the EASLM such that the sub-holograms are displayed successively in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface; and an array of lenses disposed on the output side of said EASLM projection plane, the lenses of the array being aligned with respective tiled regions (col. 3, lines 10-30).
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 holographic display system of Kollin to include the technical feature(s) of a set of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40).
With respect to Claim 2, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) further comprises another sub-hologram (of one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]) of another region (PRH including more than one hologram, e.g., PRH including horizontal hologram and vertical hologram that cooperatively replicate a pupil; [0025]) of the image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]), adjoined to at least one of the first or second sub-holograms (set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne).
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the hologram further comprises a third sub-hologram of a third region of the image, adjoined to at least one of the first or second sub-holograms.
However, Payne further teaches that the EASLM may be an acousto-optic modulator which is subdivided into a matrix of modulation elements or an array of liquid crystal elements; the image data received from the computer comprises a series of sub-holograms or hogels (e.g. parts of a larger hologram, holographic stereograms, or phase added stereograms) each consisting of a matrix of light modulation data: when tiled together, these matrices provide a complete data array defining a hologram; the sub-hologram matrices are passed to the EASLM in a raster-scan like sequence, i.e. row by row; the sub-holographic matrices are mapped in turn to the EASLM modulation elements, with the data (or rather a corresponding voltage) at each matrix point being assigned to a corresponding modulation element (cols. 3-4, lines 55-67, 1-5).
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 holographic display system of Kollin in view of Payne to include the technical feature(s) of a series of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40). Examiner reminds the applicant that it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate sub-holograms since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co, 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 3, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first (WGCH 208 having more regions; [0027]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne) and second regions (at the PRH, light beam splits into two beams; [0025]; fig. 2; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne) of the image are adjacent one another (WGCH 208 and PRH 210 adjacent one another, as seen in fig. 2; DDH 204, WG 202 and WGCH 208 are shown as being parallel to one another; [0028], Kollin; as seen in fig. 5 in view of Payne), to form a substantially continuous image on an image plane (light is primarily steered rather than attenuated to form the image; [0010]).
With respect to Claim 4, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is configured so that light that is spatially modulated (hologram may modulate phase, amplitude, or both; [0022]) by each of the sub-holograms (WGCH 208 and PRHs 210; [0026]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne) will enter the entrance pupil (aperture formed by low resolution amplitude display/LRAD 206; [0026]) of the viewing system (eye boxes; [0026]) substantially simultaneously (fig. 2), when the display device (display device 100; fig. 1) displaying the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is illuminated (holographic display systems 102/200 include image display componentry configured to project computerized virtual imagery; [0015]; DDH 204 illuminated with diverging light; [0026]; fig. 1 & 2; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 5, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: an illumination system (light diverging from source 207 illuminates a phase or amplitude modulating device in the form of DDH 204; [0026]) arranged to illuminate the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) displayed on the display device (display device 100; light-deflecting image display componentry includes one or more holographic optical components; [0015]), to form a holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 7, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, in which the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) formed by the display device (display device 100; fig. 1) comprises a first holographic sub-wavefront (collimation and coupling by WGCH 208; [0026]), formed by the first sub-hologram (waveguide coupling hologram/WGCH 208; [0026-27]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne), and a second, different, holographic sub-wavefront (PRH 210 replicating pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]), formed by the second sub-hologram (one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne).
With respect to Claim 8, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) is configured to form an extended modulator (light beam splits into two beams with first light beam exiting the WG and being directed to user’s eye and second light beam continuing on path through WG, light beam continues down WG and splits again into PRH, extending modulation and effectively expanding eye boxes; [0025-26]) comprising a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204 replicated by pupil replicating holograms/PRH 210 of WG 202; [0026]) formed by the display device (display device 100; fig. 1), arranged in an array (as seen in fig. 2), wherein the array (fig. 2) comprises at least one replica (angular distribution of rays at each of holograms, i.e. WGCH and PRH is related to Fourier transform of image, or is in Fourier space as compared with image space focused by the user’s eye; [0025]; alternating wavefront replicas as seen in fig. 2) of the first holographic sub-wavefront (collimation and coupling by WGCH 208; [0026]), alternated with at least one replica (Fourier transform of image/Fourier space; [0025]; alternating wavefront replicas; fig. 2) of the second holographic sub-wavefront (PRH 210 replicating pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 9, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]) is formed at a non-infinite image distance (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system 102/200, wherein holographic display system 200 includes a DDH 204 illuminated by a diverging/converging beam to form an image at the waveguide 202; [0009]), from the display device (display device 100; fig. 1; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 10, Kollin discloses a method of calculating (instructions implemented to perform a task, implement a data type, transform the state of one or more components, e.g., calculate sub-holograms; [0043]) and displaying a hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) using a holographic projection system (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) comprising a display device (display device 100, holographic display systems representative of right-eye and left-eye 102R and 102L described in more detail with reference to figs. 2-7; [0015] & [0021]) configured to display a hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) and output a holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) when illuminated (holographic display systems 102/200 include image display componentry configured to project computerized virtual imagery; [0015]; DDH 204 illuminated with diverging light; [0026]; fig. 1 & 2), and a waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) arranged to receive the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) and emit a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204 replicated by pupil replicating holograms/PRH 210 of WG 202; [0026]), the method comprising:
obtaining a target image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]), for which a hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is to be generated (image forming hologram; [0022]); and
generating a first sub-hologram (waveguide coupling hologram/WGCH 208; [0026-27]) corresponding to a first image region (WGCH 208 having more regions; [0027]) of the target image (desired image; [0014]) and a second sub-hologram (one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]) corresponding to a second image region (at the PRH, light beam splits into two beams; [0025]; horizontal hologram as seen in fig. 2) of the target image (desired image; [0014]).
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the second image region being separate from the first image region; and displaying on the display device the first sub-hologram and the second sub-hologram, the second sub-hologram adjoining the first sub-hologram.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Payne teaches a holographic display (figs. 1-8) comprising: a light source; an EASLM in the path of the light source and arranged in use to be driven successively by a set of sub-holograms which together correspond to a holographic image; light guiding means arranged to guide light output from the EASLM such that the sub-holograms are displayed successively in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface; and an array of lenses disposed on the output side of said EASLM projection plane, the lenses of the array being aligned with respective tiled regions (col. 3, lines 10-30).
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 holographic display system of Kollin to include the technical feature(s) of a set of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 11, Kollin discloses a method of holographic projection (holographic display systems 102/200 include image display componentry configured to project computerized virtual imagery; [0015]; DDH 204 illuminated with diverging light; [0026]; fig. 1 & 2) comprising:
displaying a hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) on a display device (display device 100, holographic display systems representative of right-eye and left-eye 102R and 102L described in more detail with reference to figs. 2-7; [0015] & [0021]), the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) comprising a sub-hologram (waveguide coupling hologram/WGCH 208; [0026-27]) of a first region (WGCH 208 having more regions; [0027]) of an image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]) adjoined to another sub-hologram (one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]) of a second region (at the PRH, light beam splits into two beams; [0025]; fig. 2) of the image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]);
illuminating (DDH 204 illuminated with diverging light; [0026]) the displayed hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]), to form a holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]); and
directing the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) through a waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]);
wherein the waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) comprises an input (diverging light; [0026]) arranged to receive the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]); and a first (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) and second surface (bottom surface of WG 202; fig. 2) arranged to waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]) the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) therebetween (fig. 2), wherein the first surface (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) is partially reflective-transmissive (light coupled and transmitted into WG 202 through top surface, light propagates through waveguide by reflecting from top surface; [0026]; as seen in fig. 2) such that a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204 replicated by pupil replicating holograms/PRH 210 of WG 202; [0026]) are emitted therefrom (fig. 2);
wherein a size of the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is less than a size (pixel size of the LRAD could be 10 to 100 times larger than the DDH pixel size e.g., 100's of μm; [0013]) of an entrance pupil (aperture formed by low resolution amplitude display/LRAD 206; [0026]) of a viewing system (eye boxes; [0026]) for receiving the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]) from the first surface (top surface of WG 202; fig. 2) of the waveguide (pupil replicating waveguide/WG 202; [0026]).
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the hologram comprising a first sub-hologram of a first region of an image adjoined to a second sub-hologram of a second region of the image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Payne teaches a holographic display (figs. 1-8) comprising: a light source; an EASLM in the path of the light source and arranged in use to be driven successively by a set of sub-holograms which together correspond to a holographic image; light guiding means arranged to guide light output from the EASLM such that the sub-holograms are displayed successively in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface; and an array of lenses disposed on the output side of said EASLM projection plane, the lenses of the array being aligned with respective tiled regions (col. 3, lines 10-30).
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 holographic display system of Kollin to include the technical feature(s) of a set of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 12, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11 comprising, as an initial step, calculating (holographic display systems implemented in computing system in form of near-eye display device 100 as well as computing system 1000, wherein holographic display systems include pupil replicating waveguide assembly including a waveguide (WG), a waveguide coupling hologram (WGCH), and one or more pupil replicating holograms (PRH); [0021]; instructions implemented to perform a task, implement a data type, transform the state of one or more components, e.g., calculate sub-holograms; [0043]) the sub-holograms (WGCH 208 and PRHs 210; [0026]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne) for viewing of the image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]) by the viewing system (eye boxes; [0026]; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 13, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said method is at least partially computer implemented (on-board computing system 108 configured to render computerized display imagery as well as the example computing system 1000; [0017] & [0021]; fig. 1 & 10; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 14, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) further comprises a fourth sub-hologram (of one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]) of a fourth region (PRH including more than one hologram, e.g., PRH including horizontal hologram and vertical hologram that cooperatively replicate a pupil; [0025]) of the image (image in a user’s eye; [0026]), adjoined to at least one of the first, second or third sub-holograms (one or more PRH 210; [0021] & [0026]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne).
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the hologram further comprises a fourth sub-hologram of a fourth region of the image, adjoined to at least one of the first, second or third sub-holograms.
However, Payne further teaches that the EASLM may be an acousto-optic modulator which is subdivided into a matrix of modulation elements or an array of liquid crystal elements; the image data received from the computer comprises a series of sub-holograms or hogels (e.g. parts of a larger hologram, holographic stereograms, or phase added stereograms) each consisting of a matrix of light modulation data: when tiled together, these matrices provide a complete data array defining a hologram; the sub-hologram matrices are passed to the EASLM in a raster-scan like sequence, i.e. row by row; the sub-holographic matrices are mapped in turn to the EASLM modulation elements, with the data (or rather a corresponding voltage) at each matrix point being assigned to a corresponding modulation element (cols. 3-4, lines 55-67, 1-5).
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 holographic display system of Kollin in view of Payne to include the technical feature(s) of a series of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40). Examiner reminds the applicant that it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate sub-holograms since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co, 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 16, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first region of the target image (desired image; [0014]; Kollin) adjoins the second region of the image (image in a user’s eye, different parts of the DDH create different parts of the image; [0011], [0026]; Kollin).
Payne further teaches a holographic display (figs. 1-8) comprising: a light source; an EASLM in the path of the light source and arranged in use to be driven successively by a set of sub-holograms which together correspond to a holographic image; light guiding means arranged to guide light output from the EASLM such that the sub-holograms are displayed successively in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface; and an array of lenses disposed on the output side of said EASLM projection plane, the lenses of the array being aligned with respective tiled regions (col. 3, lines 10-30).
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 holographic display system of Kollin to include the technical feature(s) of a set of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40).
With respect to Claim 17, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11.
Kollin does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein each sub-hologram is displayed on a respective contiguous group of pixels of the display device.
However, Payne further teaches a holographic display (figs. 1-8) comprising: a light source; an EASLM in the path of the light source and arranged in use to be driven successively by a set of sub-holograms which together correspond to a holographic image; light guiding means arranged to guide light output from the EASLM such that the sub-holograms are displayed successively in respective tiled regions of an EASLM projection surface; and an array of lenses disposed on the output side of said EASLM projection plane, the lenses of the array being aligned with respective tiled regions (col. 3, lines 10-30). Payne also discloses that a converging wave may enable an EASLM with smaller pixels (larger diffraction angle) to be used whilst avoiding vignetting (light rays from regions on the EASLM 1 away from the centre not passing through the replicating optics). Converging wave illumination may be achieved simply by moving the point sources in a direction away from the EASLM (col. 5, lines 35-45; contiguous group of pixels as seen in figs. 1, 5, 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 holographic display system of Kollin to include the technical feature(s) of a set of sub-holograms, which together correspond to a holographic image, being displayed in respective tiled regions and in smaller pixels of an EASLM projection surface, for the purpose of taking advantage of discrete coherent nature of sub-holograms, reducing the need for extra-large elements, reducing the angle through which replay optics have to direct light, and utilizing thinner, smaller optics, as taught by Payne (col. 6, lines 25-40).
With respect to Claim 18, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the method forms a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront (small pupil formed by DDH 204 replicated by pupil replicating holograms/PRH 210 of WG 202; [0026]) formed by the display device (display device 100, holographic display systems representative of right-eye and left-eye 102R and 102L described in more detail with reference to figs. 2-7; [0015] & [0021]), arranged in an array (as seen in fig. 2), wherein the array comprises at least one replica (angular distribution of rays at each of holograms, i.e. WGCH and PRH is related to Fourier transform of image, or is in Fourier space as compared with image space focused by the user’s eye; [0025]; alternating wavefront replicas as seen in fig. 2) of the first holographic sub-wavefront (collimation and coupling by WGCH 208; [0026]), alternated with at least one replica (Fourier transform of image/Fourier space; [0025]; alternating wavefront replicas; fig. 2) of the second holographic sub-wavefront (PRH 210 replicating pupil formed by DDH 204; [0026]; Kollin).
With respect to Claim 19, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the method of claim 11, wherein light that is spatially modulated (hologram may modulate phase, amplitude, or both; [0022]) by each of the sub-holograms (WGCH 208 and PRHs 210; [0026]; set of sub-holograms; col. 3, lines 10-30; Kollin in view of Payne) will enter the entrance pupil (aperture formed by low resolution amplitude display/LRAD 206; [0026]) of the viewing system (eye boxes; [0026]) substantially simultaneously (fig. 2), when the display device (display device 100; fig. 1) displaying the hologram (digital dynamic hologram/DDH 204; [0026]) is illuminated (holographic display systems 102/200 include image display componentry configured to project computerized virtual imagery; [0015]; DDH 204 illuminated with diverging light; [0026]; fig. 1 & 2; Kollin).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollin et al. US 20180120563 A1 (herein after "Kollin") in view of Payne et al. US 6760135 B1 (herein after "Payne") and Leister et al. US 20200166754 A1 (herein after "Leister").
With respect to Claim 6, Kollin in view of Payne teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 1.
Kollin in view of Payne does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the size of the entrance pupil is no more than 15 mm.
However, in another field of endeavor, Leister teaches a display device for enlarging a field of view ([0035]), wherein a holographic segment that generates a virtual observer window small in its dimensions, e.g., 3 mm to 5 mm large in its dimensions, is generated using a single parallax encoding of a hologram in a spatial light modulation device ([0133]).
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 near eye display device of Kollin in view of Payne to include the technical feature of scaling the size of an entrance pupil to be about 3 mm to 5 mm while also utilizing computer-generating holography, for the purpose of providing an observer window in a non-encoding direction while providing a virtual observer window in an encoding direction of a hologram, as taught by Leister ([0133-134]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale the size of an entrance pupil within a holographic optical system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
With respect to Claim 15, Kollin in view of Payne and Leister teaches the holographic projector (near-eye display device 100 including a holographic display system; [0009]; e.g., holographic display system 200; fig. 1 & 2) as claimed in claim 6.
Kollin in view of Payne does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the size of the entrance pupil is no more than 10 mm.
However, in another field of endeavor, Leister teaches a display device for enlarging a field of view ([0035]), wherein a holographic segment that generates a virtual observer window small in its dimensions, e.g., 3 mm to 5 mm large in its dimensions, is generated using a single parallax encoding of a hologram in a spatial light modulation device ([0133]).
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 near eye display device of Kollin in view of Payne to include the technical feature of scaling the size of an entrance pupil to be about 3 mm to 5 mm while also utilizing computer-generating holography, for the purpose of providing an observer window in a non-encoding direction while providing a virtual observer window in an encoding direction of a hologram, as taught by Leister ([0133-134]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale the size of an entrance pupil within a holographic optical system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
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 23 September 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
