Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on January 29, 2024 for application number 18/426,126. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. App GB 2304312.8, filed on March 24,2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 29,2024, July 11,2024 and January 27,2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschau et al.(US 2010/0073744 A1)(hereinafter Zschau) in view LEISTER et al.(SU 2019/0121291 A1)(hereinafter Leister).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Zchau discloses a driver for a display device and a display device[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-2, par. 3-5 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels which reconstruct object points by electronically influencing the amplitude and/or phase of illuminating light. …Controlling a light modulator means with the hologram values of the video holograms causes the emitted wave field, which has been modulated in its pixels, to reconstruct the desired three-dimensional scene in the space by creating interferences.] comprising a plurality of pixels[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-2, par. 3-5 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels];
the driver being arranged to drive the display device to display a hologram of a picture on the plurality of pixels such that / wherein the display device is arranged to display a hologram of a picture on the plurality of pixels such that, when the display device is suitably illuminated, a holographic reconstruction of the picture is formed downstream of the display device [See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels… The holographic display device(HAE) comprises a light modulator means (SLM), which is identical to the screen means (B) in this embodiment in order to keep things simple, and it superimposes the wave fields which are modulated with information of object points of a scene (3D-S) in at least one visibility region (VR). The visibility region is tracked to the eyes. A reconstruction space (RV) stretches between the light modulator means (SLM) and the visibility region (VR). The reconstruction of a single object point (OP) of a scene (3D-S) only requires one sub-hologram (SH) as a subset of the total hologram (HƩSLM) encoded on light modulator means (SLM).…];
wherein the holographic reconstruction comprises a plurality of image points / the holographic reconstruction comprising a plurality of image points [See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding A holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels which reconstruct object points by electronically influencing the amplitude and/or phase of illuminating light. In this document, the term `pixel` denotes a controllable hologram pixel in the light modulator means; a pixel is individually addressed and controlled by a discrete value of a hologram point. Each pixel represents a hologram point of the video hologram. In an LCD, the term `pixel` is therefore used for the individually addressable image points of the display screen] and the hologram is arranged such that each image point of the holographic reconstruction is formed using a contiguous group of pixels of the display device / wherein display device is arranged such that each image point is formed using a contiguous group of pixels of the display device [See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding A sub-hologram is defined for each object point of the scene to be reconstructed. The total hologram is formed by a superimposition of sub-holograms. In general, the principle is to reconstruct mainly that wave front that would be emitted by an object into one or multiple visibility regions. The reconstruction of a single object point only requires a sub-hologram as a subset of the total hologram which is encoded on the light modulator means…A reconstruction space (RV) stretches between the light modulator means (SLM) and the visibility region (VR). The reconstruction of a single object point (OP) of a scene (3D-S) only requires one sub-hologram (SH) as a subset of the total hologram (HƩSLM) encoded on light modulator means (SLM).…].
Zschau does not explicitly disclose wherein each contiguous group of pixels comprises less than 5% of the total number of pixels of the display device.
However, producing a subhologram or a contiguous group of pixels that is less than 5% of the total number of pixels of the display device was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Leister[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8 and par. 154-170, 173-177, 180-188 regarding In Fig. 2, in which the size of the subhologram on the SLM is plotted in pixels against the distance of an object point of a scene to be reconstructed from the SLM. The solid curve shows subhologram sizes as a function of the object point distance with respect to the SLM for an SLM with a resolution of about five megapixels, a pixel pitch of 156 μm and with a distance of an observer with respect to the SLM, or display, of about 2 m. The dashed curve also represented shows subhologram sizes as a function of the object point distance with respect to the SLM for an SLM with an approximate pixel pitch of 30 μm and an approximate distance of an observer with respect to the SLM, or display, of 70 cm… In particular for the SLM of the dashed curve, however, there is already a size of the subhologram of 5 pixels for a distance of the object point with respect to the SLM, or display, of about 1 cm—in this case only about 1.4% of the observer distance. Thus, the relevant depth region is then very small… For an SLM according to the solid curve according to FIG. 2—for the case with a virtual visibility region with a size of 6 mm—FIG. 5a shows an amplitude profile for a subhologram which is generated and calculated by an object point which is located about 10 cm—or 5% of the observer distance—in front of the display or SLM—i.e. closer than the object points considered previously… From FIGS. 2 to 5a, it can thus be inferred that the analytical calculation of the subhologram by means of the projection method is advantageously modified for subholograms which are very small in their size or extent, for example in this case for a virtual visibility region with a size of 6 mm and a relative distance of the object points with respect to the display or SLM of 10% of the observer distance, in such a way that the amplitude profile of the subhologram is approximated to the amplitudes of the subhologram determined with the Fourier transform method, by allowing different amplitudes of the individual pixels of the subhologram, or the individual pixels having different amplitudes...].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zschau with Leister teachings by including “wherein each contiguous group of pixels comprises less than 5% of the total number of pixels of the display device” because this combination has the benefit of providing an alternate size for each subhologram in accordance to the observer distance with respect to the display or SLM[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8 and par. 154-170, 173-177, 180-188].
Regarding claim 18, Zchau discloses a method of calculating a hologram of an picture for an optical system[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3, par. 1-5 regarding method for generating video holograms in particular computer-generated video holograms (CGVH), from image data with depth information in real time.] comprising a pixelated display device arranged to display the hologram[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-2, par. 1-5 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels], the picture comprising a plurality of image points[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a,b-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding A holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels which reconstruct object points by electronically influencing the amplitude and/or phase of illuminating light. In this document, the term `pixel` denotes a controllable hologram pixel in the light modulator means; a pixel is individually addressed and controlled by a discrete value of a hologram point. Each pixel represents a hologram point of the video hologram. In an LCD, the term `pixel` is therefore used for the individually addressable image points of the display screen], the method comprising:
for each image point, defining an area on the display device using straight line paths from the image point to the display device [See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding In Fig. 1a, the reconstruction of a single object point (OP) of a scene (3D-S) only requires one sub-hologram (SH) as a subset of the total hologram (HƩSLM)) encoded on light modulator means (SLM). As can be seen in this figure, the region of the sub-hologram (SH) only comprises a small subsection of the light modulator means (SLM). According to a most simple embodiment, the centre of the sub-hologram (SH) lies on the straight line through the object point (OP) to be reconstructed and through the centre of the visibility region (VR). In a most simple embodiment, the size of the sub-hologram (SH) is determined based on the theorem of intersecting lines, where the visibility region (VR) is traced through the object point (OP) to be reconstructed back to the light modulator means (SLM). The position and 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…];
determining a sub-hologram for each image point and displaying the sub-hologram on the respective area of the display; wherein each area on the display device comprises a contiguous group of pixels[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding A sub-hologram is defined for each object point of the scene to be reconstructed. The total hologram is formed by a superimposition of sub-holograms. In general, the principle is to reconstruct mainly that wave front that would be emitted by an object into one or multiple visibility regions. The reconstruction of a single object point only requires a sub-hologram as a subset of the total hologram which is encoded on the light modulator means…A reconstruction space (RV) stretches between the light modulator means (SLM) and the visibility region (VR). The reconstruction of a single object point (OP) of a scene (3D-S) only requires one sub-hologram (SH) as a subset of the total hologram (HƩSLM) encoded on light modulator means (SLM).…].
Zschau does not explicitly disclose each contiguous group comprising less than 5% of a total number of pixels of the display device.
However, producing a subhologram or a contiguous group of pixels that is less than 5% of the total number of pixels of the display device was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Leister[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8 and par. 154-170, 173-177, 180-188 regarding In Fig. 2, in which the size of the subhologram on the SLM is plotted in pixels against the distance of an object point of a scene to be reconstructed from the SLM. The solid curve shows subhologram sizes as a function of the object point distance with respect to the SLM for an SLM with a resolution of about five megapixels, a pixel pitch of 156 μm and with a distance of an observer with respect to the SLM, or display, of about 2 m. The dashed curve also represented shows subhologram sizes as a function of the object point distance with respect to the SLM for an SLM with an approximate pixel pitch of 30 μm and an approximate distance of an observer with respect to the SLM, or display, of 70 cm… In particular for the SLM of the dashed curve, however, there is already a size of the subhologram of 5 pixels for a distance of the object point with respect to the SLM, or display, of about 1 cm—in this case only about 1.4% of the observer distance. Thus, the relevant depth region is then very small… For an SLM according to the solid curve according to FIG. 2—for the case with a virtual visibility region with a size of 6 mm—FIG. 5a shows an amplitude profile for a subhologram which is generated and calculated by an object point which is located about 10 cm—or 5% of the observer distance—in front of the display or SLM—i.e. closer than the object points considered previously… From FIGS. 2 to 5a, it can thus be inferred that the analytical calculation of the subhologram by means of the projection method is advantageously modified for subholograms which are very small in their size or extent, for example in this case for a virtual visibility region with a size of 6 mm and a relative distance of the object points with respect to the display or SLM of 10% of the observer distance, in such a way that the amplitude profile of the subhologram is approximated to the amplitudes of the subhologram determined with the Fourier transform method, by allowing different amplitudes of the individual pixels of the subhologram, or the individual pixels having different amplitudes...].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zschau with Leister teachings by including “each contiguous group comprising less than 5% of a total number of pixels of the display device” because this combination has the benefit of providing an alternate size for each subhologram in accordance to the observer distance with respect to the display or SLM[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8 and par. 154-170, 173-177, 180-188].
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 19, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 16 and 18, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein the hologram is arranged such that a distance between the display device and the holographic reconstruction is 20 millimetre or less[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8, par. 8-9, 36-47, 102-104, 154, 161-165, 173 regarding Furthermore, it may advantageously be provided that, in the case of a small distance of the object point with respect to the spatial light modulation device, for example less than 5% of the observer distance with respect to the spatial light modulation device for a display with a size of a virtual visibility region of more than 10 mm, or preferably less than 10% of the observer distance with respect to the spatial light modulation device for a display with a size of a virtual visibility region of between 5 mm and 10 mm, and/or in the case of a large angle of the object point with respect to the virtual visibility region, for example more than 20 degrees or 30 degrees, the encoding region is determined from a subhologram which is calculated with a Fourier transform method and/or by means of Huygens' wavelets.].
Regarding claim 3, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches wherein the hologram is arranged such that a distance between the display device and the holographic reconstruction is less than a width and/or a height of the display device[See Leister: at least Figs. 1-10, par. 8-9, 26-27, 31, 36-47, 64, 102-104, 154, 161-165, 173, 197-205 regarding Furthermore, it may advantageously be provided that, in the case of a small distance of the object point with respect to the spatial light modulation device, for example less than 5% of the observer distance with respect to the spatial light modulation device for a display with a size of a virtual visibility region of more than 10 mm, or preferably less than 10% of the observer distance with respect to the spatial light modulation device for a display with a size of a virtual visibility region of between 5 mm and 10 mm, and/or in the case of a large angle of the object point with respect to the virtual visibility region, for example more than 20 degrees or 30 degrees, the encoding region is determined from a subhologram which is calculated with a Fourier transform method and/or by means of Huygens' wavelets…In Fig. 9, for the object points P3 and P4 which have a short distance with respect to the SLM and lie in the depth region TBK, subholograms SH are calculated according to the Fourier transform method. The encoding regions on the SLM are respectively determined and generated from these subholograms SH, SHN for the respective object points PN…].
Regarding claim 4, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein each contiguous group of pixels has a width that is less than or equal to 2 millimetres [See Leister: at least par. 36-53, 102-115, 154, regarding size of a subhologram on the SLM. n the projection method for determining subholograms, rays are geometrically traced, or placed, from the edge of the virtual visibility region through an object point P to the SLM. If the virtual visibility region is parallel to the SLM and the distance of an object point P with respect to the display is z and with respect to the virtual visibility region is D-z, the following is obtained according to the intercept theorem for the size of the subhologram sh=|z/(D−z)|vw, where the distance z is selected here to be positive when the object point lies between the display, or the SLM, and the virtual visibility region and is selected to be negative when the object point lies behind the display, as seen from the observer plane. The size of a subhologram in pixels is determined by calculating sh/p and rounding to an integer value Nsh=int(sh/p). For the case in which the virtual visibility region VW is selected to be equally large in its extent as a diffraction order, i.e. VW=Dλ/p, then Nsh=int(Dz/(D−z)λ/p2). For a display with an observer distance D of 2 m and with a pixel pitch p of 156 μm, for example for a wavelength of λ=470 nm, there is a diffraction order with an extent of 6 mm. If the size of the virtual visibility region is selected to be equal to the size or extent of the diffraction order, then for an object point 50 cm in front of the display the subhologram is sh=2 mm large and has a pixel number of Nsh=13 pixels. For a rectangularly configured pixel grid there is a horizontal value of Nsh_hor for the size of the subhologram in pixels and a vertical value of Nsh_vert for the size of the subhologram in pixels. The total number of pixels in a subhologram is then the product Nsh_hor*Nsh_vert. In particular, in the case of a rectangularly configured pixel grid, the smaller of the two values: Nsh_hor or Nsh_vert is used for classifying the size of a subhologram. A subhologram may thus also be regarded as small when, for example, it is only 5 pixels wide in the horizontal direction but is 50 pixels high in the vertical direction...].
Regarding claim 6, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein each contiguous group of pixels comprises 100,000 pixels or less[See Leister: at least par. 36-53, 102-115, 154, regarding size of a subhologram on the SLM...The size of a subhologram in pixels is determined by calculating sh/p and rounding to an integer value Nsh=int(sh/p). For the case in which the virtual visibility region VW is selected to be equally large in its extent as a diffraction order, i.e. VW=Dλ/p, then Nsh=int(Dz/(D−z)λ/p2). For a display with an observer distance D of 2 m and with a pixel pitch p of 156 μm, for example for a wavelength of λ=470 nm, there is a diffraction order with an extent of 6 mm. If the size of the virtual visibility region is selected to be equal to the size or extent of the diffraction order, then for an object point 50 cm in front of the display the subhologram is sh=2 mm large and has a pixel number of Nsh=13 pixels. For a rectangularly configured pixel grid there is a horizontal value of Nsh_hor for the size of the subhologram in pixels and a vertical value of Nsh_vert for the size of the subhologram in pixels. The total number of pixels in a subhologram is then the product Nsh_hor*Nsh_vert. In particular, in the case of a rectangularly configured pixel grid, the smaller of the two values: Nsh_hor or Nsh_vert is used for classifying the size of a subhologram. A subhologram may thus also be regarded as small when, for example, it is only 5 pixels wide in the horizontal direction but is 50 pixels high in the vertical direction...(Thus, the size calculation method for each subhologram is configured to construct a subhologram comprising 100,000 pixels or less)].
Regarding claim 7, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein each contiguous group of pixels comprises 1,000 pixels or less[See Leister: at least par. 36-53, 102-115, 154, regarding size of a subhologram on the SLM...The size of a subhologram in pixels is determined by calculating sh/p and rounding to an integer value Nsh=int(sh/p). For the case in which the virtual visibility region VW is selected to be equally large in its extent as a diffraction order, i.e. VW=Dλ/p, then Nsh=int(Dz/(D−z)λ/p2). For a display with an observer distance D of 2 m and with a pixel pitch p of 156 μm, for example for a wavelength of λ=470 nm, there is a diffraction order with an extent of 6 mm. If the size of the virtual visibility region is selected to be equal to the size or extent of the diffraction order, then for an object point 50 cm in front of the display the subhologram is sh=2 mm large and has a pixel number of Nsh=13 pixels. For a rectangularly configured pixel grid there is a horizontal value of Nsh_hor for the size of the subhologram in pixels and a vertical value of Nsh_vert for the size of the subhologram in pixels. The total number of pixels in a subhologram is then the product Nsh_hor*Nsh_vert. In particular, in the case of a rectangularly configured pixel grid, the smaller of the two values: Nsh_hor or Nsh_vert is used for classifying the size of a subhologram. A subhologram may thus also be regarded as small when, for example, it is only 5 pixels wide in the horizontal direction but is 50 pixels high in the vertical direction...(Thus, the size calculation method for each subhologram is configured to construct a subhologram comprising 1,000 pixels or less)]..
Regarding claim 8, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein each contiguous group of pixels comprises 100 pixels or less[See Leister: at least par. 36-53, 102-115, 154, regarding size of a subhologram on the SLM...The size of a subhologram in pixels is determined by calculating sh/p and rounding to an integer value Nsh=int(sh/p). For the case in which the virtual visibility region VW is selected to be equally large in its extent as a diffraction order, i.e. VW=Dλ/p, then Nsh=int(Dz/(D−z)λ/p2). For a display with an observer distance D of 2 m and with a pixel pitch p of 156 μm, for example for a wavelength of λ=470 nm, there is a diffraction order with an extent of 6 mm. If the size of the virtual visibility region is selected to be equal to the size or extent of the diffraction order, then for an object point 50 cm in front of the display the subhologram is sh=2 mm large and has a pixel number of Nsh=13 pixels. For a rectangularly configured pixel grid there is a horizontal value of Nsh_hor for the size of the subhologram in pixels and a vertical value of Nsh_vert for the size of the subhologram in pixels. The total number of pixels in a subhologram is then the product Nsh_hor*Nsh_vert. In particular, in the case of a rectangularly configured pixel grid, the smaller of the two values: Nsh_hor or Nsh_vert is used for classifying the size of a subhologram. A subhologram may thus also be regarded as small when, for example, it is only 5 pixels wide in the horizontal direction but is 50 pixels high in the vertical direction...(Thus, the size calculation method for each subhologram is configured to construct a subhologram comprising 100pixels or less)].
Regarding claim 9, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein the display device comprises at least 1 million pixels[See Leister: at least par. 50-51 regarding the device reconstructs a video hologram in one periodicity interval of the Fourier transform in an observer plane. The reconstructed three-dimensional scene can be observed through an observer window located in front of each eye. The reconstructed scene is visible inside the reconstruction frustum; the scene can thereby be reconstructed on, in front of or behind the array surface. This allows the use of a conventional array with resolution near 3 million pixels at reasonable hardware expenses and computing power. It is an object of this invention to reduce the computational requirements of computing a hologram. It is a further object to realize an electro-holographic display for reconstructing video holograms using a SLM with a conventional resolution; the holograms should provide a high quality reconstructed image… (Thus, the display device can provide high quality reconstructed image at least a resolution of 1 million pixels)].
Regarding claim 10, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Zschau and Leister teach or suggest wherein each contiguous group of pixels 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 Zschau: at least Figs. 1-3, par. 27, 41-46 regarding sub-holograms in the Figs. 1-2 have a rectangular shape… See Leister: at least Figs. 1-8, par. 56-63 regarding Furthermore, it is now possible according to the invention that the encoding region, if it is larger or smaller than the subhologram or even has approximately the size of the subhologram, may have a different shape or contour than the subhologram. If the subhologram is configured to be rectangular, for example, the encoding region could also be configured to be oval, round, hexagonal or even square. These are only examples, which are not intended to restrict the shape of the encoding region thereto. It is, of course, also possible, contrary to this procedure presented above to explain the invention, to speak of a subhologram which is increased or reduced in its extent, since, as is known, the subhologram constitutes the area of the encoding of the object point on the SLM. Therefore, the subholograms according to the invention could now be subholograms generated to be larger, equal or smaller in their extent compared to those generated with the previously known method. Correspondingly, this subhologram may also have a different shape than the previously known, usually rectangular, subholograms. As already explained above, the subhologram may assume a round, oval, rectangular, hexagonal, square or any other shape…].
Regarding claim 11, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Zschau and Leister teach or suggest wherein the holographic reconstruction is formed as a point cloud image [See Zschau: at least Figs. 1-3 regarding “object points OP”…See Leister: at least Fig. 1 and par. 7-19 regarding FIG. 1 shows a device in which the generation of subholograms for a multiplicity of object points at different depths with respect to a spatial light modulation device SLM is carried out as a projection of a virtual visibility region VW via the respective object point onto the spatial light modulation device SLM…].
Regarding claim 20, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Leister teaches or suggests wherein the display device comprises at least 2 million pixels[See Leister: at least par. 50-51 regarding the device reconstructs a video hologram in one periodicity interval of the Fourier transform in an observer plane. The reconstructed three-dimensional scene can be observed through an observer window located in front of each eye. The reconstructed scene is visible inside the reconstruction frustum; the scene can thereby be reconstructed on, in front of or behind the array surface. This allows the use of a conventional array with resolution near 3 million pixels at reasonable hardware expenses and computing power. It is an object of this invention to reduce the computational requirements of computing a hologram. It is a further object to realize an electro-holographic display for reconstructing video holograms using a SLM with a conventional resolution; the holograms should provide a high quality reconstructed image… (Thus, the display device can provide high quality reconstructed image at least a resolution of 2 million pixels)].
9. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschau et al.(US 2010/0073744 A1)(hereinafter Zschau) in view LEISTER et al.(SU 2019/0121291 A1)(hereinafter Leister) in further view of Smeeton et al.(US 2022/0043394 A1)(hereinafter Smeeton).
Regarding claim 12, Zschau and Leister teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Zschau and Leister teach an optical system having a viewing window [See Zschau: at least Figs. 1-3 and par. 6-9, 38 regarding The holographic display device comprises at least one screen means. The screen means is either the light modulator itself where the hologram of a scene is encoded, or an optical element--such as a lens or a mirror--on to which a hologram or wave front of a scene encoded on the light modulator is projected… The visibility region is a confined region through which the observer can watch the entire reconstructed scene. Within the visibility region, the wave fields interfere to form a wave front such that the reconstructed scene becomes visible for the observer. The visibility region is located on or near the eyes of the observer…See Leister: at least Fig. 1 and par. 7-10, 81-83, 178 regarding lens functions and visibility region.], wherein the optical system comprises:
a display device arranged to be driven by a driver as claimed in claim 1[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-2, par. 3-5 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels which reconstruct object points by electronically influencing the amplitude and/or phase of illuminating light. …Controlling a light modulator means with the hologram values of the video holograms causes the emitted wave field, which has been modulated in its pixels, to reconstruct the desired three-dimensional scene in the space by creating interferences… See Leister: at least Fig. 1 regarding holographic display apparatus], the display device being further arranged to spatially modulate light in accordance with the hologram displayed thereon to form a holographic wavefront, wherein the holographic wavefront forms the holographic reconstruction downstream of the display device[See Zchau: at least Figs. 1a-3 and par. 4-29, 38-39 regarding holographic display device typically comprises an arrangement of controllable pixels… The holographic display device(HAE) comprises a light modulator means (SLM), which is identical to the screen means (B) in this embodiment in order to keep things simple, and it superimposes the wave fields which are modulated with information of object points of a scene (3D-S) in at least one visibility region (VR). The visibility region is tracked to the eyes. A reconstruction space (RV) stretches between the light modulator means (SLM) and the visibility region (VR). The reconstruction of a single object point (OP) of a scene (3D-S) only requires one sub-hologram (SH) as a subset of the total hologram (HƩSLM) encoded on light modulator means (SLM).… See Leister: at least Figs. 1, 9-12, par. 17-21, 97-114, 121, 134, 204-205 regarding Since the light path from the virtual visibility region to the SLM backward is calculated with wave propagation, when the SLM is illuminated in a suitable way, conversely the light propagation from the subhologram to the virtual visibility region thus again gives a sharply delimited virtual visibility region… ].
Zschau and Leister do not explicitly disclose a waveguide arranged to receive the holographic wavefront and waveguide the holographic wavefront between a pair of reflective surfaces thereof, wherein one surface of the pair of reflective surfaces is partially transmissive such that a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront are emitted therefrom.
However, Smeeton teaches disclose a waveguide arranged to receive the holographic wavefront and waveguide the holographic wavefront between a pair of reflective surfaces thereof, wherein one surface of the pair of reflective surfaces is partially transmissive such that a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront are emitted therefrom [See Smeeton: at least Figs. 11-14, par. 246-257, 259, 262, 267-268 regarding holographic system including a waveguide pupil expander. In this example, the waveguide comprises two reflective surfaces but the description that follows is equally applicable to a slab configuration in which light is guided inside by the slab by internal reflections between the top and bottom surface of the slab. The general principle of a waveguide is known in the art and not described in detail herein. A waveguide guides light within a layer between a pair of parallel reflective surfaces by internal reflection. A pupil expander is formed from a waveguide comprising a first graded/partially reflective surface 1120 (e.g. a graded mirror having varying reflectivity with distance) and a second fully reflective surface 1110 (e.g. a mirror having substantially 100% reflectivity)… Due to the graded reflectivity of first reflective surface 1120, a proportion of light is transmitted by first reflective surface 1120 to provide a plurality of output light rays 1104a-f (herein called “replicas” because they replicate the input light rays) along the length of the waveguide. Thus, first reflective surface 1120 forms a viewing surface. It is said that the pupil (or viewing window) is expanded by the replicas formed by the waveguide. In particular, by forming a plurality of replicas 1104a-f along the length of the waveguide, the viewing window is increased in size. Each replica 1104a-f corresponds to a proportion of the amplitude (intensity or brightness) of the input light beam 1102….].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zschau and Leister with Smeeton teachings by including “a waveguide arranged to receive the holographic wavefront and waveguide the holographic wavefront between a pair of reflective surfaces thereof, wherein one surface of the pair of reflective surfaces is partially transmissive such that a plurality of replicas of the holographic wavefront are emitted therefrom” because this combination has the benefit of incorporating a waveguide including a reflective surface configured to replicate the holographic wavefront to provide a complete image from any position within a limited area at the eye box/viewing distance to an observer or viewer [See Smeeton: at least Figs. 11-14, par. 246-257, 259, 262, 267-268]
Regarding claim 13, Zschau, Leister and Smeeton teach all of the limitations of claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Smeeton teaches further comprising an optical component between the holographic reconstruction and the waveguide, wherein the optical component is arranged to form a virtual image of the holographic reconstruction upstream of the display device[See Smeeton: at least Figs. 1, 6-7B and par. 26-31, 37, 158, 178 regarding The detection elements may be located substantially at the holographic replay plane, at which an (intermediate) holographic reconstruction of the light pattern is formed. Alternatively, or additionally, some or all of the detection elements may be located at an image plane, at which an image of an intermediate holographic reconstruction is formed. Alternatively, or additionally, some or all of the detection elements may be located upstream of the holographic replay plane (i.e. between the SLM and the holographic replay plane) and/or downstream of the holographic replay plane (e.g. between the holographic replay plane and an image plane). Therefore, in some cases, the holographic reconstruction may not yet be fully formed, and/or may not be properly focused, at the location of one or more of the detection elements. For example, in some cases the holographic replay field may be located at the retina of the observer's eye, using the eye's lens as a Fourier lens to form the holographic reconstruction. Therefore, any monitoring of the light from the SLM would be upstream of the Fourier lens, in such an arrangement…].
Regarding claim 14, Zschau, Leister and Smeeton teach all of the limitations of claim 13, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Smeeton teaches or suggests wherein: a distance between the holographic reconstruction and the optical component is less than a focal length of the optical component such that the image of the holographic reconstruction is a virtual image formed upstream of the display device[See Smeeton: at least par. 174 regarding Although not explicitly shown, the SLM 754 may include a software lensing function that enables the image of the holographic reconstruction to be focussed at different respective distances, away from the plane of the projection lens 756. This can accommodate a target scene having some inherent depth, and thus enable observation of the scene at a plurality of different depths. A plurality of different lensing functions, each with a different respective focal length, may be provided, stored in a suitable repository, for selection if/when needed to achieve a desired range for the SLM 754…]; or wherein the optical system further comprises an optical relay between the display device and waveguide, the optical relay comprising two lens arranged in cooperation to form a relayed holographic reconstruction, wherein the relayed holographic reconstruction is an image of the holographic reconstruction formed by the hologram displayed on the display device, and wherein a distance between the relayed holographic reconstruction and the optical component is less than a focal length of the optical component such that the virtual image of the holographic reconstruction formed by the optical component is a virtual image of the relayed holographic reconstruction[See Smeeton: at least Figs. 1-14, par. 4, 26-27, 93, 254, 262, regarding For example, in some cases the holographic replay field may be located at the retina of the observer's eye, using the eye's lens as a Fourier lens to form the holographic reconstruction. Therefore, any monitoring of the light from the SLM would be upstream of the Fourier lens, in such an arrangement…In some arrangements of a waveguide-HUD, for example the arrangement in FIG. 14, the holographic reconstruction is not formed until it reaches the retina of an observer's eye. That is, the observer's eye lens acts as the Fourier lens for forming the holographic reconstruction. In such an arrangement, a Fourier lens may be included, to act only on the replica ray that is used for monitoring. The replica ray therefore may be extracted from the waveguide, propagated through a Fourier Lens and may then travel on towards one or more monitoring photodiodes…In the illustrated arrangement, a beam splitter cube 1330 is arranged to separate input light to SLM 1340 and spatially modulated light output by SLM 1340. A Fourier lens 1350 and mirror 1360 are provided in the optical path of the output spatially modulated light to light receiving surface 1370. It may be said that a first/second picture is formed on the light receiving surface 1370. The first/second pictures are first/second holographic reconstructions of the respective first/second holograms.].
Regarding claim 15, Zschau, Leister and Smeeton teach all of the limitations of claim 13, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, Smeeton teaches wherein the optical component is arranged such that the holographic wavefront coupled into the waveguide is a transform of a holographic wavefront encoding the picture [See Smeeton: at least Figs. 1-14, par. 4, 56, 26-27, 92-93, 254, 262, regarding Computer-generated holography may numerically simulate the interference process. A computer-generated hologram may be calculated by a technique based on a mathematical transformation such as a Fresnel or Fourier transform…In some arrangements of a waveguide-HUD, for example the arrangement in FIG. 14, …the holographic reconstruction is not formed until it reaches the retina of an observer's eye. That is, the observer's eye lens acts as the Fourier lens for forming the holographic reconstruction. In such an arrangement, a Fourier lens may be included, to act only on the replica ray that is used for monitoring. The replica ray therefore may be extracted from the waveguide, propagated through a Fourier Lens and may then travel on towards one or more monitoring photodiodes…].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA J PICON-FELICIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-5252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571 272 7331. 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.
/Ana Picon-Feliciano/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights