DETAILED ACTION
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted Claims 30-38 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention originally claimed (i.e., a method for calculating a hologram) and the newly claimed invention (i.e., a method of using an optical system and a driver for a display device) are directed to distinct processes having a materially different design and do not overlap in scope. the limitations of claims 18-19 and 21-29 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of claims 30-38, including detailed directed to the Fourier transform of the hologram, the shapes and areas defined by the sub-hologram; and the limitations of Claims 30-38 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of claims 18-19 and 21-29, including details directed to holographic reconstruction via illumination, waveguide coupling, an optical component and optical relay.
Since applicant has received a restriction/election on 04/01/2026 for the originally presented invention of the method of hologram calculation as claimed, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 30-38 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Applicant’s own remarks (see pg. 6 of Remarks filed 07/01/2026) state that newly submitted claims 30-38 reflect originally-filed claims 1 and 11-16 which correspond to non-elected inventions of Groups I-II (see pg. 2 of Restriction 04/01/2026).
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 01/29/2024, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 04/01/2026. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-12, 17), the invention of Group II (Claims 13-16, 20), and the invention of Group III (Claims 18-19).
Applicant’s election of Group III in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Accordingly, Claims 18-19 and 21-29 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 30-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The four information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 03/24/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The slash in Claim 27 renders unclear the claim scope: “…the third side is suitable for fitting into/interlocking with the fourth side.…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-19, 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zachau et al. (US 2010/0073744 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Zschau discloses: A method of calculating a hologram of a picture for an optical system comprising a display device arranged to display the hologram (FIG. 3), the picture comprising a plurality of image points (¶0005-06: A holographic display device based a scene divided into object points encoded as a total hologram on at least one light modulator means in the form of SLM), the method comprising:
A. for each image point, defining an area on the display device using straight line paths from the image point to the display device (¶0019, 0021: the size of the subhologram [area] is determined based on the theorem of intersecting lines, the position of the sub-hologram is determined such that the centre of the sub-hologram lies on the straight line through the object point to be reconstructed and through the centre of the visibility region; see FIG. 2);
B. determining a sub-hologram for each image point and displaying the sub-hologram on the respective area of the display (¶0006, 00021: A sub-hologram is defined for each object point of the scene to be reconstructed; ¶0038: reconstruction of a single object point of a scene (3D-S) requires one sub-hologram (SH); see FIGS. 1-2 showing sub-hologram for each image point and displayed on respective area of display);
C. wherein each area on the display device has a first shape comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are arranged such that, if the first shape is replicated, a respective first side of a first replica of the first shape is suitable for cooperating with a respective second side of a second replica of the first shape (see FIG. 2 showing each area on the display having a first shape comprising a first side and second side arranged such that the first side cooperates with second side when replicated; ¶0038: the size of the sub-hologram defines the indices of those pixels on the light modulator means (SLM) which are required for reconstructing this object point, correction functions are applied to the sub-holograms in order to compensate tolerances of the light modulator means caused by its position or shape. The correction values are added to the data values of the sub-holograms).
Regarding Claim 19, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein each area comprises a contiguous group of pixels, and the step of displaying the sub-hologram comprises displaying the sub-hologram on the respective contiguous group of pixels (¶0018, 0038: The region of the sub-hologram includes those pixels, the size of the sub-hologram defines the indices of those pixels on the light modulator means (SLM) which are required for reconstructing this object point and which must be addressed; see FIG. 3 showing the step of displaying the sub-hologram on the respective contiguous group of pixels).
Regarding Claim 23, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape is a shape that is suitable for providing a packing density of 90% or greater (¶0038-0040: The position and size of the sub-hologram defines the indices of those pixels required for reconstructing…sub-holograms (SH1, SH2) relate to the object points (OP1, OP2), respectively, and are confined and form a small and contiguous subset of the total hologram (H.SIGMA..sub.SLM); see FIGS. 1b-2 showing first shape being suitable for providing a packing density of 90% or greater).
Regarding Claim 24, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape is substantially non-circular (¶0038: see FIGS. 1-2 showing the first shape of each area as non-circular).
Regarding Claim 25, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape is a shape that is suitable for monohedral tessellation (¶0038-0040: see FIGS. 1b-2 showing the first shape of each area as suitable for monohedral tessellation).
Regarding Claim 26, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape is a shape that is suitable for forming a continuous surface when the first shape is replicated in a first direction, the continuous surface comprising replicas of the first shape that fit together and/or abut one another (¶0038-0040: see FIGS. 1b-2 showing the first shape of each area as suitable for forming a continuous surface comprising abutting replicas when replicated).
Regarding Claim 27, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape comprises a third side and an opposing fourth side, wherein the third side has a shape which corresponds to the fourth side such that the third side is suitable for fitting into/interlocking with the fourth side (¶0038-0040; see FIG. 2 showing a third side and fourth side corresponding to each such that it is suitable for fitting into/interlocking).
Regarding Claims 28-29, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau further discloses: wherein the first shape is a quadrilateral shape (clm 27); wherein the first shape is a rectangle or a square (clm 28) (¶0038: see FIGS. 1-2 showing the first shape of each area as a rectangle/ quadrilateral).
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachau et al. (US 2010/0073744 A1) in view of Leister et al. (US 2019/0121291 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Zschau discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Zschau does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a Fourier transform of the hologram has a second shape corresponding to the first shape.
Leister is related to Zschau with respect to a method of calculating a hologram of a picture for an optical system comprising a display device (FIGS. 1, 9) comprising: a sub-hologram for each image point and displaying the sub-hologram on the respective area of the display; wherein each area has a first shape arranged such that it is suitable for replication (¶0059-61, 0098, 0132, 0180, 0197-99), and Leister teaches: wherein a Fourier transform of the hologram has a second shape corresponding to the first shape (¶0014, 0017, 0159: the Fourier transform method achieves a higher quality of the reconstructed scene since it is based on wave propagation and leads to a hologram which reconstructs a scene visible from the virtual visibility region; ¶0061: the subhologram may assume a round, oval, rectangular, hexagonal, square or any other shape)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zschau in view of Leister to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a Fourier transform method is known and would be selected to achieves a higher quality of the reconstructed scene since it is based on wave propagation., as taught in paragraphs ¶0017 of Leister.
Regarding Claim 22, Zschau-Leister discloses the method according to Claim 21, as above. Leister further discloses: wherein the second shape is such that, if a Fourier transform of the hologram is replicated by a hologram replicator, a respective first side of a first replica of the Fourier transform of the hologram is suitable for co-operating with the respective second side of a second replica of the transform of the hologram (¶0131: during the calculation according to the Fourier transform method, from a square or rectangular virtual visibility region, square or rectangular subholograms are generally likewise calculated in the SLM).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Christmas et al. (US 2021/0041834 A1) discloses a method of calculating a hologram of a picture for an optical system comprising a display device comprising a sub-hologram for each image point and displaying the sub-hologram on the respective area of the display, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights