DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, and 19. They contain the limitation of “a predetermined fraction of a total resolution of a dense nanophotonic array having the rectangular footprint”. This appears to be a calculation of:
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
=
(
∝
)
x
(
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
a
d
e
n
s
e
n
a
n
o
p
h
o
t
o
n
i
c
a
r
a
r
y
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
e
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
)
However, the values of
∝
and dense nanophotonic array are not defined nor are the described as to how to calculate them. The primary question being asked is what is considered a dense nanophotonic array. With out the definition it is impossible to determine the number of light emitting elements in the claim limitation. As alpha being a “predetermined” value and no direction as to its range than
0
≤
∝
≤
1
. With both values not being defined or bound than there is no bounds on the number of light emitting elements in the defined structure and any number of light emitting will read on this limitation. Therefor this limitation as currently written is only limiting to systems that have no light emitting elements.
Although claims 3, 11 and 20 define the predetermined fraction as being 0.1 this still does not resolve the deficiencies introduced by the number of elements in a dense nanophotonic array.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 18, and 20 are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Favalora et. al. (US 2018/0210394 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a holographic display, comprising:
a sparse nanophotonic array having a rectangular footprint including an active pixel area (102; Abstract and para. 0079, lines 1-7),
where the active pixel area includes a plurality of light-emitting elements (para. 0023) arranged in a starburst shape (see fig. 5, para. 0079; (Examiner notes that a “diamond shape” is a form of a Starburst shape (is claim 2 below) and a diamond shape is a rectangle viewed at a 45 degree angle)), and where a total number of the plurality of light-emitting elements in the active pixel area is equal to a predetermined fraction of a total resolution of a dense nanophotonic array having the rectangular footprint (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 2 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a holographic display, where the starburst shape includes a central pixel row of the rectangular footprint, a central pixel column of the rectangular footprint, and a diamond- or ellipse-shaped pixel area centered around a center of the rectangular footprint (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 3 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a holographic display, where the predetermined fraction is 0.1 (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 7 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a holographic display, further comprising:
a pixel circuit located within the rectangular footprint and outside of the active pixel area (para. 0073).
Regarding claim 8 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a holographic display, where the pixel circuit includes at least one timing circuit, driving circuit, switching circuit, processing circuit, or power circuit (para. 0061).
Regarding claim 9 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a sparse nanophotonic array having a rectangular footprint, the sparse nanophotonic array comprising area (102; Abstract and para. 0079, lines 1-7):
an active pixel area within the rectangular footprint (para. 0023), where the active pixel area includes a plurality of light-emitting elements arranged in a starburst shape (see fig. 5, para. 0079; (Examiner notes that a “diamond shape” is a form of a Starburst shape (is claim 2 below) and a diamond shape is a rectangle viewed at a 45 degree angle)), and where a total number of the plurality of light-emitting elements in the active pixel area is equal to a predetermined fraction of a total resolution of a dense nanophotonic array having the rectangular footprint (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 10 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a sparse nanophotonic array having a rectangular footprint, where the starburst shape includes a central pixel row of the rectangular footprint, a central pixel column of the rectangular footprint, and a diamond- or ellipse-shaped pixel area centered around a center of the rectangular footprint (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 11 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a sparse nanophotonic array having a rectangular footprint, where the predetermined fraction is 0.1 (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 14 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a method of manufacturing a holographic display, comprising:
applying an iterative algorithm to at least one image (para. 0077); selecting a plurality of active pixel locations based on the iterative algorithm (para. 0077); and producing a sparse nanophotonic array having a rectangular footprint including an active pixel area including the plurality of active pixel locations (para. 0077).
Regarding claim 15 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a method of manufacturing a holographic display, where the active pixel area has a starburst shape (see fig. 5, para. 0079; (Examiner notes that a “diamond shape” is a form of a Starburst shape (is claim 2 below) and a diamond shape is a rectangle viewed at a 45 degree angle)).
Regarding claim 16 Favalora teaches (figs. 3C, 5-7, and 13-15) a method of manufacturing a holographic display, where the starburst shape includes a central pixel row of the rectangular footprint, a central pixel column of the rectangular footprint, and a diamond- or ellipse-shaped pixel area centered around a center of the rectangular footprint (para. 0079).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further optical holographic display designs are disclosed in Liu et. al. (US 11,114,016 B2), Spector et. al. (US 2018/0175961 A1), Hafezi et. al. (US 9,052,448 B2), and Kim et. al. (US 2022/0270525 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights