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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/12/2026 and the Request for continuing Examination filed on 03/31/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2,4-19 and 21-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 1,4,6-18 and 22 have been amended by the Applicant. Previous claims 4, 6 and 8-10 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph have been withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendment to claim 4 and claim 1. Previous claims 1-2,4-19 and 21-22 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been partially withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 an 18.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Continuation of application PCT/CN2022/090934, filed 05/05/2022 that claims foreign priority to CN 202110552755.2, filed 05/20/2021 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6,8-9,11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recited the limitation phrase regarding the configuration of the phase compensation apparatus i.e. “ to perform first phase compensation and chromatic aberration correction on the light ray of the image received from an image source, to obtain an output light ray of the image, including performing compensation on a spherical aberration and a coma aberration of the light ray of the image, by providing a phase compensation factor using a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element of the phase compensation apparatus;” in lines 5-9 of both claims. Moreover, claim 22 further recites “the phase compensation factor is determined based on a light wave vector, a spherical aberration coefficient, a horizontal coordinate of a point on a wavefront, a vertical coordinate of the point on the wavefront, a coma aberration coefficient, and a scaling factor”.
However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated. Specifically, while the phase compensation apparatus is configured to perform phase compensation and chromatic aberration including spherical and coma aberration correction on source image light ray, it is unclear what is the phase compensation factor, how is it provided to an optical element, and how is the factor provided using a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element? It is unclear how is the phase factor defined and how does this result in some limitation to some specific shape or function of an optical element? It is also unclear what is meant by a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element, and how is the phase factor using this phase cumulative distribution of the optical element? It is held that notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite, In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP § 2173.05(g). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Hence it is unclear how the later part of the above limitation i.e. “providing a phase compensation factor using a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element of the phase compensation apparatus can be treated. For the purposes of examination the above functional claim limitation will be treated broadly, such that optical element(s) can perform compensation on a spherical aberration and a coma aberration of the light ray of the image, due to of changed phase of the image light passing through the compensation optic and given that compensation is affected by phase factor as the optic is designed for compensation due to its structural characteristics, materials and/or shapes as such phase factor is distributed cumulatively over the image light passing through optical element(s). It is suggested to amend the claim and/or provide explanations as to how the above functional limitation can be treated, in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation phrase regarding the image source that “is further configured to perform distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient, wherein the distortion coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image”, in last 5 lines of each claim. However this phrase limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be treated given that it unclear how can image source be configured to perform processing i.e. computational steps as an image source, without any other recited structures that can perform computational processing on digital image files? More specifically, it is unclear how can the image source in advance perform geometric transformation on input image by using a distortion coefficient, that is somehow obtained, by some part or someone, by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image? It is unclear, how is this operation performed in advance for the input image, when the fitting performed obtaining distortion coefficient requires input and output image? Moreover, it is unclear as to what portions of the projection system are associated with the input and output images and the final output image? Lastly the above limitations appear as computational method steps regarding performing geometrical transformations, using distortion coefficient and fitting relationship between images for obtaining the distortion coefficient. These steps will be interpreted in terms of the structural limitations that they imply to the extent understood by the examiner and only the structural limitations therein will be given patentable weight. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011).(See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II). It is suggested to amend the claim and/or provide explanations as to how the above functional limitation can be treated, in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 2, 4-17, 21 and 22 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 22 recites the limitation where “he phase compensation factor satisfies the following
PNG
media_image1.png
96
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
spherical aberration coefficient, x represents a horizontal coordinate of a point on a wavefront, y is a vertical coordinate of the point on the wavefront, Cx represents a coma aberration coefficient, and q is an included angle between a direction of a central projection light ray outgoing from the phase compensation apparatus and a normal direction of the holographic combiner”. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be treated, given the configuration of the phase compensation apparatus with optical element performs phase and chromatic aberration correction including coma and spherical aberration correction, and has some phase compensation factor, which can be mathematically expressed in a number of different ways, while the above is an example of such mathematical expression. But the limitation does not appear to further limit the structure of the phase compensation apparatus or its optical element in any manner or form. The limitation will be treated broadly such that the phase compensation apparatus with optical element configured to performs phase and chromatic aberration correction including coma and spherical aberration correction, satisfies the claim limitation above. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,4-7, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrington et al. (hereafter Withrington) US 4218111 A in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang, where attached English language translation is referenced) CN 201780766 U.
In regard to independent claim 1, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) a projection system (holographic head-up display projecting optical image signals to user, abstract, col. 2 line 20-col.3 line 8, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47, col. 5 line 19-63, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23, e.g. Figs. 1-2, cl. 1), comprising:
a phase compensation apparatus (e.g. relay lens system with achromat lenses 10, reflecting element 17, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47, col. 5 line 19-63, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23), an image source (e.g. CRT 12,e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, Figs. 1-2), and a holographic combiner (holographic combiner 11, abstract, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23), wherein
the image source (e.g. CRT 12,e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, Figs. 1-2) is configured to send the light ray of an image to the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as 12 sends image light to be passed to 10,17, see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47);
the phase compensation apparatus (10-17, Figs. 1-2) is configured to:
perform first phase compensation and chromatic aberration correction on the light ray of the image received from the image source (i.e. as 10,17 compensate for aberrations as achromat, and aspheric, decentered elements, col. 4 lines 12-47, col. 5 lines 19-63), to obtain an output light ray of the image (10, 17 output and reflect image signals from source e.g. 12, col. 5 lines 11-63, Figs. 1-2), including performing compensation on a spherical aberration and a coma aberration of the light ray of the image (i.e. as 10, 17 compensate for coma and principal aberrations, and x-y astigmatism, see col. 5 lines 11-54, Figs. 1-2,8), by providing a phase compensation factor using a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element of the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as best understood given that the phase factor distributed cumulatively over the image light signals by passing through 10 lens with achromatized, tilted and decentered element(s), see col. 4 lines 20-33, col. 5 lines 19-63, Tables I,II);
reflect the output light ray of the image to the holographic combiner (10, 17 reflect image signals from source e.g. 12, col. 5 lines 11-63, Figs. 1-2);
the holographic combiner is configured to perform second phase compensation on the output light ray of the image reflected by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as 11 as holographic combiner performs “phase compensation” of the output image source signal light reflected from 10,17, as a holographic element on image light that is reflectively received from 17,10, and as 10,17 and 11 are matched to each other, i.e. to avoid excessively high angles of incidence leading to image distortions, and 11 can be constructed with aberrated wavefront for aberrations correction, e.g. abstract, col. 4 lines 12-47, col. 5 lines 19-63. Figs. 1-2), and deflect the output light ray of the image that has undergone the second phase compensation into a human eye, so that the output light ray of the image becomes an enlarged image (i.e. as 11 deflects image light to eye O of observer exit pupil 24, presenting magnified image, col. 3 line 36-col. 4 line 47, e.g. Figs. 1-2,8).
But Withrington is silent that the image source is further configured to perform distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient, wherein the distortion coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image.
However, Zhang teaches in the same field of invention of a digital helmet displayer (apparatus) (see Figs. 1-5, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,03-10,21-32]) and further teaches the image source is further configured to perform distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient (i.e. as helmet display image source with processor module e.g. FGPA and memory(s) performs electronic pre-distortion correction by coordinate transformation of input image using correction coefficient from correction coefficient memory, see e.g. paragraphs [5-8,21-32], Figs. 1-5), wherein the distortion coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image (i.e. as best understood, calculating correction coefficient by fitting image data e.g. each pixel (x,y) and pre-distorted image data pixel (x’,y’), eliminating distortion in the display image, as provided correction of distortion of display image is increased, and the helmet display optical structure volume and cost of the system are reduced, see e.g. paragraphs [5-8,21-32], Figs. 1-5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the holographic head-up display with image source of Withrington to include configuration for distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image according to teachings of Zhang in order to realize the real-time distortion correction of the display image and with display optical structure that has reduced volume and cost of the system (see Zhang, paragraphs [10-13,32]).
Regarding claim 2, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that in performing the second phase compensation on the output light ray of the image reflected by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. wavefront aberration and matching of 11 with 10,17 on image light from 17,10, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47, Figs. 1-2), the holographic combiner is configured to performing compensation on astigmatism of the light ray that is of the image and that is output by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. compensation of 11 matched with 10,17, includes astigmatism aberrations, col. 5 lines 33-54).
Regarding claim 4, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the holographic combiner is fabricated by adding spatial light modulator and/or a free-form curved mirror and performing holographic exposure (i.e. as the holographic combiner 11 made with imprinting aberrated wavefront, and having curved focal surface 21, and due to relative tilting and decentering with respect to 10, as added to display projector with source 12, e.g. abstract, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23).
Regarding claim 5, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that there is an included angle between a central projection light ray outgoing from the holographic combiner and a normal direction of the holographic combiner (i.e. as depicted for image light rays reflected from 11 and its surface, see Figs. 1-2, e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23).
Regarding claim 6, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the projection system is used in an in-vehicle head-up display system (i.e. as holographic head-up display projector is used as HUD in aircraft cockpit, see abstract, col. 1 lines 44-col. 2 line 67,col. 3 line 48-64); and the phase compensation apparatus is disposed at a central console of the vehicle (i.e. as 11 is part of the cockpit with canopy 22, and 10, 17 with source is integrated below 22 in the airplane 13, cockpit, as depicted in Figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 1 lines 44-col. 2 line 67,col. 3 line 48-64).
Regarding claim 7, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a value range of a cumulative optical path d from the image source to the holographic combiner is from 200 millimeters to 600 millimeters, including 200 millimeters and 600 millimeters (i.e. given dimensions of 10, 17 and length values from back surface 52 (face plate of CRT 12) to wedge 17 surface 69, and relative dimensions of 10-17 and distance to 11m the length is in such range, see Tables II, I col 5 line 64-col. 6 line 59), and a value of a focal length of the holographic combiner in a first direction is from 202.70 millimeters to 681.82 millimeters, including 202.70 millimeters and 681.82 millimeters (e.g. as hologram 11 focal length EFL 24.51 cm same for horizontal and vertical, see col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 12, Table I), and a value range of a focal length y of the holographic combiner in a second direction is from 200.31 millimeters to 679.03 millimeters including 200.31 millimeters and 679.03 millimeters (e.g. as hologram 11 focal length EFL 24.51 cm same for horizontal and vertical, see col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 12, Table I).
Regarding claim 17, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the phase compensation apparatus (10,17) further comprises a planar reflector (i.e. as planar surfaces 68, 69 of element X i.e. reflective wedge 17, col. 4 lines 34-47, cl. 5 lines 21-31, 64-col. 6 line 55, Table II).
In regard to independent claim 18, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) a terminal comprising a projection system (i.e. as cockpit displays with holographic head-up display projecting optical image signals to user, abstract, col. 2 line 20-col.3 line 8, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, col. 5 line 19-63, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23, e.g. Figs. 1-2, cl. 1), the projection system comprises:
a phase compensation apparatus (e.g. relay lens system with achromat lenses 10, reflecting element 17, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47, col. 5 line 19-63, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23) ,
an image source (e.g. CRT 12,e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, Figs. 1-2) configured to send the light ray of an image to the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as 12 sends image light to be passed to 10,17, see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47), and a holographic combiner (holographic combiner 11, col. 6 line 17-col. 7 line 23), wherein
the phase compensation apparatus is configured to:
perform first phase compensation and chromatic aberration correction on the light ray of the image received from an image source (i.e. as 10,17 compensate for aberrations as achromat, and aspheric, decentered elements, col. 4 lines 12-47, col. 5 lines 19-63), to obtain an output light ray of the image (10, 17 output and reflect image signals from source e.g. 12, col. 5 lines 11-63, Figs. 1-2), including performing compensation on a spherical aberration and a coma aberration of the light ray of the image (i.e. as 10, 17 compensate for coma and principal aberrations, and x-y astigmatism, see col. 5 lines 11-54, Figs. 1-2,8), by providing a phase compensation factor using a phase cumulative distribution of an optical element of the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as best understood given that the phase factor distributed cumulatively over the image light signals by passing through 10 lens with achromatized, tilted and decentered element(s), see col. 4 lines 20-33, col. 5 lines 19-63, Tables I,II);
reflect the output light ray of the image to the holographic combiner (10, 17 reflect image signals from source e.g. 12, col. 5 lines 11-63, Figs. 1-2);
the holographic combiner is configured to perform second phase compensation on the output light ray of the image reflected by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. as 11 as holographic combiner performs “phase compensation” as a holographic element on image light received from 17,10, and as 10,17 and 11 are matched to each other, i.e. to avoid excessively high angles of incidence leading to image distortions, col. 4 lines 12-47, col. 5 lines 19-63. Figs. 1-2), and deflect the output light ray of the image that has undergone the second phase compensation into a human eye, so that the output light ray of the image becomes an enlarged image (i.e. as 11 deflects image light to eye O of observer exit pupil 24, presenting magnified image, col. 3 line 36-col. 4 line 47, e.g. Figs. 1-2,8).
But Withrington is silent that the image source is further configured to perform distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient, wherein the distortion coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image.
However, Zhang teaches in the same field of invention of a digital helmet displayer (apparatus) (see Figs. 1-5, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,03-10,21-32]) and further teaches the image source is further configured to perform distortion preprocessing on an input image in advance in a geometric transformation manner using a distortion coefficient (i.e. as helmet display image source with processor module e.g. FGPA and memory(s) performs electronic pre-distortion correction by coordinate transformation of input image using correction coefficient from correction coefficient memory, see e.g. paragraphs [5-8,21-32], Figs. 1-5), wherein the distortion coefficient is obtained by fitting a relationship between coordinates of a reference point of the input image and coordinates of a reference point of an output image, so that distortion is eliminated for a final output image (i.e. as best understood, calculating correction coefficient by fitting image data e.g. each pixel (x,y) and pre-distorted image data pixel (x’,y’), eliminating distortion in the display image, as provided correction of distortion of display image is increased, and the helmet display optical structure volume and cost of the system are reduced, see e.g. paragraphs [5-8,21-32], Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 19, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that in performing the second phase compensation on the output light ray of the image reflected by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. wavefront aberration and matching of 11 with 10,17 on image light from 17,10, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47, Figs. 1-2), the holographic combiner is configured to performing compensation on astigmatism of the light ray that is of the image and that is output by the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. compensation of 11 matched with 10,17, includes astigmatism aberrations, col. 5 lines 33-54).
Regarding claim 22, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the phase compensation factor satisfies the following
PNG
media_image1.png
96
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
spherical aberration coefficient, x represents a horizontal coordinate of a point on a wavefront, y is a vertical coordinate of the point on the wavefront, C,. represents a coma aberration coefficient, and q is an included angle between a direction of a central projection light ray outgoing from the phase compensation apparatus and a normal direction of the holographic combiner (i.e. as best understood given that phase compensation factor can be expressed by mathematical expression, as the phase factor distributed cumulatively over the image light signals having given wave vector and phase of the wavefront of the image signal light over the surface of element(s) in 10 with vertical and horizontal coordinates and given the passing through 10 lens with achromatized, tilted and decentered element(s) (including angle
between central projection light ray outgoing from 10, 17) and a normal direction of the holographic combiner 11), and which are configured for compensation for coma and principal aberrations, and x-y astigmatism, for lens element(s) and its size i.e. scale, see col. 5 lines 11-54, Figs. 1-2,8, see col. 4 lines 20-33, col. 5 lines 19-63, Tables I,II).
Claims 8-9, 11-15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrington et al. (hereafter Withrington) US 4218111 A in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang, where attached English language translation is referenced) CN 201780766 U and in view of Ide et al. (hereafter Ide) US 20190235266 A1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Withrington teaches the a central projection light ray outgoing from the holographic combiner is parallel to a normal direction of the holographic combiner (i.e. as depict in Fig. 2 reflected rays from 11 are parallel to normal point of 11, i.e. using horizontal plane as reference, see Fig. 2, col. 2 line 20-col.3 line 8, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47), and wherein the projection system is used in augmented reality AR (i.e. as holographic head-up display projects optical image signals to user through combiner 11 therefore augments the real view of the outside world of the user/operator , e.g. col. 2 line 20-col.3 line 8, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 line 47), but is silent that the projection system is AR glasses, that the holographic combiner is disposed at a lens, and the phase compensation apparatus is disposed in a leg of the AR glasses.
However, Ide teaches in the same field of invention of a display device (see Figs. 1-20, abstract, paragraphs [04-16, 48-60, 67-68, 105-109, 110-132], e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 14-20) and further teaches that the projection system is AR glasses (glasses 100, having deflected light LO parallel with the normal to holographic combiner 70, e.g. Figs. 3, 14-16), that the holographic combiner is disposed at a lens, and the phase compensation apparatus is disposed in a leg of the AR glasses (as display device pair of eyeglasses 100 capable of appropriately performing the wavelength compensation using the two diffractive elements, including holographic combiner 75, 70 integrated with lens 70 of 100, and wavelength compensation apparatus with source i.e. optical sections L10,20,30, source 31 of the right/left optical system 10(a,b) integrated in 100 housing 90 temples 92a,b, thereby providing the observer with wearable display device integrated as pair of glasses, see Figs. 1,3, 14-20, paragraphs [47-60, 67-68, 105-109]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify (scale) the holographic projecting apparatus of Withrington into wearable display device 100 according to teachings of Ide in order to provide the observer with wearable display device integrated as pair of glasses, see Figs. 1,3, 14-20, paragraphs [47-60, 67-68, 105-109]).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14 and 21, Withrington teaches the phase compensation apparatus (10, 17) but is silent that it/or its optical element comprises a reflective holographic optical element and further comprises at least one free-form curved mirror, and regarding claim 21, that its optical element includes one or more of the following: a diffractive optical element, a holographic optical element, and a micro-nano optical element.
However, Ide teaches in the same field of invention of a display device (see Figs. 1-20, abstract, paragraphs [04-16, 48-60, 67-68, 105-109, 110-132], e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 14-20) and further teaches phase compensation apparatus and it’s optical element (i.e. optical sections L10(32),L20(50),L30(60), paragraphs [53-60, 67-68, 105-109, 110-132]) comprises a reflective holographic optical element (i.e. as 50 includes holographic reflective element 55 that provides for to efficient deflection the image light L0 toward the light guide system through holographic combiner 70 and eye of the user, paragraphs [67-68], Figs. 3, 14) and further comprises at least one free-form curved mirror (i.e. as section L30 (60 includes reflecting surface formed as free-form surface 620, to provide for collimation of light towards holographic combiner, and cancel the color aberration by appropriately performing the wavelength compensation, and suppress the deterioration of the resolution of the image light e.g. paragraphs [105-109, 110-132]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the phase compensation apparatus and its optical element of Withrington to include holographic reflective element and free-form curved mirror according to teachings of Ide in order to provide for collimation of light towards holographic combiner, and cancel the color aberration by appropriately performing the wavelength compensation, and suppress the deterioration of the resolution of the image light (see Ide e.g. paragraphs [105-109, 110-132]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the Withrington-Ide combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Withrington teaches a tri-color wavelength linewidth of the light ray of the image received by the phase compensation apparatus(10,17, as modified) is less than 10 nanometers and regarding claim 15 less than 3 nanometers (i.e. treated due to 112b for base claim 1, for unspecified source of image light, image light may include tri-color wavelength including narrow bandwidth of source 12, see col. 2 lines 38-60).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrington et al. (hereafter Withrington) US 4218111 A i in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang, where attached English language translation is referenced) CN 201780766 U, in view of Ide et al. (hereafter Ide) US 20190235266 A1 and further in view of Lohman “Scaling laws for lens systems: Applied Optics Vol. 28, No. 23 pages 4996-4998, 1989.
Regarding claim 10, the Withrington-Ide combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Withrington teaches further comprising an image source (e.g. CRT 12,e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, Figs. 1-2, as adapted and scaled to wearable display per combination with Ide), configured to send the light ray of the image to the phase compensation apparatus (i.e. image light passed to 10,17, see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47);
wherein a value range of a cumulative optical path do from the image source to the holographic combiner is from 30 millimeters to 65 millimeters, including 30 millimeters and 65 millimeters (i.e. due to combination with Ide as given the size of observers head and display 100 glasses, the distance of 31 to 70 falls into that above range, see Figs. 1, 3, 14-16, paragraphs [47-60, 67-68, 105-109]); and
a value range of a focal length f-HOEX of the holographic combiner in a first direction is 30.36 millimeters to 2191.01 millimeters, including 30.36 millimeters and 2191.01 millimeters, and a value range of a focal length f-HOEY of the holographic combiner in a second direction is from 30.18 millimeters to 69.52 millimeters, including 30.18 millimeters and 69.52 millimeters (i.e. due to combination with Ide as given the size of observers head and display 100 glasses, the focal length 70 falls into that above range, see Figs. 1, 3, 8-13, 14-16, paragraphs [79-82]). In the alternative that the combination of Withrington and Ide teaches close values of the above parameters, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale the components and their distances including focal length of holographic combiner, given that Lohman teaches scaling laws for lens systems and further teaches that for lens designer scaling is trivial and that focal length, d-lens diameter and other length parameters are scalable by a factor, lateral aberrations remain proportional to the scaling factor while angles and curvatures remain the same (see Sections I, II, Fig. 2), and 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), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04). Moreover,
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrington et al. (hereafter Withrington) US 4218111 A in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang, where attached English language translation is referenced) CN 201780766 U and in view of in view of Ishida US 20190086670 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Withrington teaches (see Figs. 1-8) the projection system further comprising: comprises the an image source (e.g. CRT 12,e.g. col. 3 line 35-col. 4 lines 47, Figs. 1-2), but is silent that the image source (12 and components) is further configured to perform color-offset preprocessing on the light ray of the image.
However, Ishita teaches in the same field of invention of hear mounted head up display and image display device (see Figs. 1-8, abstract, paragraphs [06-18,30-38, 49-58,68-78]) and further teaches that image source (50, 250 and components, paragraphs [49-58,68-78], Figs. 4, 7) is further configured to perform color-offset preprocessing on the light ray of the image (i.e. as light source device generated modulated image light through processing, splitting and combining of different light beams of respective colors as well as processing of unwanted light due to attenuation, paragraphs [49-58,68-78], Figs. 4, 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and configure the image source of Withrington to include color-offset preprocessing on the light ray of the image functionality according to teachings of Ishida in order to provide processing, splitting, combining of different light beams of respective colors and processing of unwanted light, (Ishida, paragraphs [49-58,68-78]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 03/12/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights