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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1-5,7-11,13-17,19,21,23,25,27,29-30, in the submission filed 10/25/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of Claims 6,12,18,20,22,24,26,28, is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the Specification are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-5,7-11,13-17,19,21,23,25,27,29-30.
Drawings
The drawings with 16 Sheets of Figs. 1-21 received on 10/25/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “the substrate” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –a substrate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the optical waveguide extends below the imaging HOE and realizes a substrate for a refractive index-modulated region of the imaging HOE”.
It is unclear whether the waveguide is separate from the substrate with an index modulated region or whether the substrate is the same as the waveguide. From the specification (para [00106]), it appears that the waveguide is the substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,21,30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02).
Regarding Claim 1, Vojtisek teaches (fig 1,2) an optical system (lighting device 10, para 40), comprising:
an imaging holographic optical element HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40), configured to generate a floating hologram (“primary hologram 11 generates an image recorded in the primary hologram 11 in accordance with image light rays 15”, para 40) arranged in a volume (volume of air where image is displayed) outside of the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) on the basis of light,
a light source (“light source 16”, para 40) configured to transmit the light along a beam path to the imaging HOE (primary hologram 11) and a light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40) arranged in the beam path between the light source and the imaging HOE (“light source 16”, “primary hologram 11”, para 40) and configured to perform spectral filtering of the light (“The secondary hologram system 12 may thus also implement a filter function by using reflection gratings, with the result that only illumination light 14 of one wavelength or one wavelength range for which the respective primary hologram 11 is designed reaches the primary hologram 11”, para 48).
Regarding Claim 2, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 1,
furthermore comprising:
an optical waveguide (“the secondary hologram system 12 has a substrate 20, which serves as a waveguide”, para 45) which guides the beam path to the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) (as in fig 1,2).
Regarding Claim 3, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 2.
furthermore comprising:
a refractive or mirror-optical optical element (“The light source 16 can comprise one or more light-emitting diodes or other light sources such as laser light sources to generate light beams 13”, para 40, fig 1 shows collimated light beams 13 and this indicates either a lens or mirror element is present downstream of the laser source which generates light beams 13) arranged in the beam path between the light source (“light source 16”, para 40) and the light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40) and configured to collect the light transmitted by the light source on the light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40)
wherein an input coupling surface (input coupling surface is interpreted to be the bottom surface of substrate 20) of the optical waveguide (“substrate 20, which serves as a waveguide”, para 45) is arranged between the refractive or mirror-optical element (fig 1 shows collimated light beams 13 and this indicates either a lens or mirror element is present downstream of the laser source which generates light beams 13) and the light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40).
Regarding Claim 21, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40) is furthermore configured to perform at least one of the following function: (i) reduce an angular spectrum with which the light propagates along the beam path, or (ii) deflect the light (light from secondary hologram system 12) along the beam path to the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) (as in fig 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Vojtisek teaches (fig 1,2) a method for producing an optical system,
wherein the method comprises
providing an imaging holographic optical element, HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40), configured to generate a floating hologram (“primary hologram 11 generates an image recorded in the primary hologram 11 in accordance with image light rays 15”, para 40) arranged in a volume (volume of air where image is displayed) outside of the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) on the basis of light,
providing a light source (“light source 16”, para 40) configured to transmit the light along a beam path to the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”), and
providing a light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40) arranged in the beam path between the light source (“light source 16”, para 40) and the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) and configured to perform spectral filtering of the light (“The secondary hologram system 12 may thus also implement a filter function by using reflection gratings, with the result that only illumination light 14 of one wavelength or one wavelength range for which the respective primary hologram 11 is designed reaches the primary hologram 11”, para 48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4,5,27,29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02).
Regarding Claim 4, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 2.
However, embodiment of fig 1 of Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the light-shaping HOE and the imaging HOE are applied to different outer surfaces of the optical waveguide.
Vojtisek teaches (a common configuration of 2 HOEs on a waveguide in fig 2)
wherein the two HOE (HOEs 21,22, para 47) are applied to different outer surfaces of the optical waveguide (waveguide substrate 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of light-shaping and imaging HOEs of Vojtisek to be applied to different outer surfaces of the optical waveguide of Vojtisek for the purpose of utilizing common placements of HOEs on waveguides for creating luminous signatures (para 6)
Regarding Claim 5, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 2.
However, embodiment of fig 1,2, of Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the optical waveguide extends below the imaging HOE and realizes a substrate for a refractive index-modulated region of the imaging HOE.
Embodiment of fig 9A of Vojtisek teaches (fig 9A)
wherein the optical waveguide (waveguide substrate 20) extends below the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) and realizes a substrate for a refractive index-modulated region of the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of imaging HOE of embodiment of fig 1-2 of Vojtisek to have the optical waveguide extend below the imaging HOE of embodiment of fig 9A of Vojtisek for the purpose of utilizing common placements of HOEs on waveguides for creating luminous signatures (para 6).
Regarding Claim 27, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the light source comprises a light-emitting diode (“The light source 16 can comprise one or more light-emitting diodes or other light sources such as laser light sources to generate light beams 13”, para 40) with an emission spectrum,
wherein the spectral filtering of the light-shaping HOE (“hologram 21” of “secondary hologram system 12”, para 40) allows a portion of the light to pass (holographic gratings used by the input hologram 21 are reflection ratings, wavelength-selective, only a narrow wavelength range is diffracted in the desired direction, para 48)
However, Vojtisek does not teach
light-shaping HOE allows in the range of up to 50% of a width of the emission spectrum to pass.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of emission spectrum passed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0074] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses a narrow wavelength range around the LED main wavelength. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Vojtisek to have the claimed range of passed emission spectrum for the purposes of wider incident wavelength bands for broader desired diffraction range (para 48, Vojtisek).
Regarding Claim 29, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a distancedimension of a refractive index-modulated region of the imaging HOE (“primary hologram 11”, para 40) (the distance of the image indicated by arrows or beams 15 implies the image is at a very large distance from the HOE 11 relative to the lateral dimension).
However, Vojtisek does not teach
the distance is no less than 60% of a lateral dimension of a refractive index-modulated region
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of distance between the imaging HOE and the volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0038] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses distance larger than the HOE size. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Vojtisek to have the claimed range of distance between the volume and the imaging HOE for the purposes of larger holographic image generation for vehicular implementations (para 6, Vojtisek)..
Claim(s) 7-11,13-14,16,19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02) in view of Thomae et al (WO 2019/076985 A1, date: 04-15-2020, of record).
Regarding Claim 7, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 1,
a first optical channel (light source 16, to secondary hologram 12 to generate light beams 13, para 40) defined by the beam path
However, Vojtisek does not teach
furthermore comprising: a first optical channel defined by the beam path
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7)
furthermore comprising:
a first optical channel defined by the beam path (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113)
a second optical channel defined by a further beam path along which further light propagates to the imaging HOE or to a further imaging HOE (parallel beam path of second light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek to have first and second optical channels of Thomae for the purpose of illuminating different areas with different luminances (para 113).
Regarding Claim 8, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the beam path of the first optical channel and the further beam path of the second optical channel run parallel to one another, or wherein the beam path of the first optical channel and the further beam pat of the second optical channel form an angle in the range of 45° to 90° with respect to one another.
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7)
wherein the beam path of the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) and the further beam path of the second optical channel (parallel beam path of another light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) run parallel to one another, or
wherein the beam path of the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) and the further beam path of the second optical channel (beam path of another light source 4a to beam deflection area 3a and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) form an angle in the range of 45° to 90° with respect to one another (as in fig 7A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek to have parallel or angled first and second optical channels of Thomae for the purpose of illuminating different areas with different luminances (para 113).
Regarding Claim 9, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the first optical channel is configured to illuminate a first region of the imaging HOE with the light, wherein the second optical channel is configured to illuminate a second region, of the imaging HOE with the further light, wherein the first region and the second region
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
wherein the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) is configured to illuminate a first region of the imaging HOE (hologram 2, para 113) with the light,
wherein the second optical channel (beam path of one light source 4a to beam deflection area 3a and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) is configured to illuminate a second region, of the imaging HOE (hologram 2, para 113) with the further light, wherein the first region and the second regionilluminations and thus different signatures may be produced”, para 113) (overlapping regions as in fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek to have first and second optical channels illuminating overlapping regions of imaging HOE of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 10, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 9.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the first optical channel is configured to illuminate the overlap region with the light at a first reconstruction angle wherein the second optical channel configured to illuminate the overlap region with the further light at a second reconstruction angle, wherein the first reconstruction angle differs from the second reconstruction angle .
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
wherein the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) is configured to illuminate the overlap region (overlapping regions as in fig 8) with the light at a first reconstruction angle (reconstruction angle as in fig 7A-C) and
wherein the second optical channel (beam path of one light source 4a to beam deflection area 3a and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) configured to illuminate the overlap region (overlapping regions as in fig 8) with the further light at a second reconstruction angle (reconstruction angle as in fig 7A-C),
wherein the first reconstruction angle differs from the second reconstruction angle (reconstruction angle as in fig 7A-C are different for sources 4a,4b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek to have first and second optical channels having first and second reconstruction angles of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 11, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the first optical channel is configured to illuminate a first region of the imaging HOE with the light, wherein the second optical channel is configured to illuminate a second region of the imaging HOE with the further light , wherein the first region and the second region
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
wherein the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) is configured to illuminate a first region of the imaging HOE (hologram 2, para 113) with the light,
wherein the second optical channel (beam path of another one light source 4b to another beam deflection area 3a and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) is configured to illuminate a second region, of the imaging HOE (hologram 2, para 113) with the further light,
wherein the first region and the second region are arranged next to one another (fig 7B shows areas of illumination of hologram 2 are next to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek to have first and second optical channels having first and second regions of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 13, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
furthermore comprising: a further light source configured to transmit the further light along the further beam path , wherein the light source is configured to transmit the light with a first emission spectrum, wherein the further light source is configured to transmit the further light with a second emission spectrum, wherein the first emission spectrum and the second emission spectrum do not overlap.
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
furthermore comprising:
a further light source (light source 4c, para 114) configured to transmit the further light along the further beam path , wherein the light source (light source 4b, para 114) is configured to transmit the light with a first emission spectrum , wherein the further light source (light source 4c, para 114) is configured to transmit the further light with a second emission spectrum (yellow color, para 114), wherein the first emission spectrum and the second emission spectrum do not overlap (“If, as in the example with brake light, tail light and turn signal, a different wavelength is used for the turn signal, another wavelength can also be used for this additional wavelength.”, para 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Vojtisek to have different emission spectra of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 14, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
furthermore comprising:
a further light source configured to transmit the further light along the further beam path, wherein the light source is configured to transmit the light with a first emission spectrum, wherein the further light source is configured to transmit the further light with a second emission spectrum, wherein the first emission spectrum and the second emission spectrum overlap at least in part.
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
furthermore comprising:
a further light source (another light source 4b, para 113) configured to transmit the further light along the further beam path , wherein the light source (light source 4b, para 113) is configured to transmit the light with a first emission spectrum , wherein the further light source (light source 4b, para 113) is configured to transmit the further light with a second emission spectrum, wherein the first emission spectrum and the second emission spectrum overlap at least in part (plurality of light sources 4b indicate same spectrum for all).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Vojtisek to have light sources with overlapping emission spectra of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 16, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the first optical channel furthermore comprises: a refractive or mirror- optical element configured to collect the light, wherein the second optical channel furthermore comprises: a further refractive or mirror-optical optical element configured to collect the further light , wherein the refractive or mirror-optical optical element and the further refractive or mirror-optical optical element are integrally formed.
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
furthermore comprising:
wherein the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) furthermore comprises:
a refractive or mirror- optical element (beam deflection section 3b, used as collimator, para 113) configured to collect the light,
wherein the second optical channel (beam path of another one light source 4a to another beam deflection area 3a and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) furthermore comprises:
a further refractive or mirror-optical optical element (beam deflection section 3a, used as collimator, para 113) configured to collect the further light,
wherein the refractive or mirror-optical optical element (beam deflection section 3b, used as collimator, para 113) and the further refractive or mirror-optical optical element (beam deflection section 3a, used as collimator, para 113) are integrally formed (as in fig 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 modify the beam path of Vojtisek to have first and second optical channels with refractive or mirror elements of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Regarding Claim 19, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
a controller is configured to separately or jointly control the light source of the first optical channel and the further light source of the second optical channel on the basis of at least one of a brightness specification of an image motif of the floating hologram or a motif specification of an image motif of the floating hologram.
Vojtisek and Thomae are related as optical systems with imaging HOE.
Thomae teaches (fig 7A-C,8)
a controller (“the use of light source devices that approximately employ point light sources”, para 53, LEDs, para 54, now LEDs are controlled by a controller) is configured to separately or jointly control (“Light sources can have their own refractive coupling surface, but they can also share a common coupling surface”, para 89) the light source of the first optical channel (beam path of one light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) and the further light source of the second optical channel (parallel beam path of second light source 4b to beam deflection area 3b and beam to diffracting hologram 2, para 113) on the basis of at least one of a brightness specification of an image motif of the floating hologram or a motif specification of an image motif of the floating hologram (“An image is then created on the same side”, para 50) (“Due to the angular selectivity of holograms, different holographic structures in hologram 2 can be addressed by different illuminations, thus generating different signatures. The illuminance on the hologram, i.e. the luminance, can be varied by the focal lengths of the beam deflection sections 3a, 3b used as collimators, as well as by the number of light sources 4a, 4b used and by the emitted radiant intensity of the light sources 4a and 4b.”, para 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Vojtisek to separately or jointly control the light source of the first optical channel and the further light source of the second optical channel of Thomae for the purpose of designing luminances for different areas (para 113).
Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02) in view of Thomae et al (WO 2019/076985 A1, date: 04-15-2020) and further in view of Shirakura et al (US 2021/0318658 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 14.
However, Vojtisek-Thomae does not teach
furthermore comprising:
a further light-shaping HOE
Vojtisek-Thomae and Shirakura are related as optical systems with light sources and light shaping HOE.
Shirakura teaches (fig 2),
furthermore comprising:
a further light-shaping HOE (reflection holographic diffraction grating 104B, para 71) arranged in the further beam path after the further light source (green LED 105B, para 71) and configured to perform spectral filtering of the further light,
wherein the spectral filtering of the light-shaping HOE (reflection holographic diffraction grating 104A, para 71) in the first optical channel allows a portion of the light in a first wavelength range to pass (red wavelength, para 71),
wherein the spectral filtering of the further light-shaping HOE (reflection holographic diffraction grating 104B, para 71) in the second optical channel allows a portion of the further light in a second wavelength range to pass (green wavelength, para 71),
wherein the first wavelength range differs (red) from the second wavelength range (green).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek-Thomae to have a further light shaping HOE of Shirakura for the purpose of processing image holograms in full color (para 71).
Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02) in view of Thomae et al (WO 2019/076985 A1, date: 04-15-2020) and further in view of Redmond et al (US 9,804,564 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Vojtisek-Thomae teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 7.
However, Vojtisek-Thomae does not teach
furthermore comprising:
a further light-shaping HOE
Vojtisek-Thomae and Redmond are related as optical systems with light sources and light shaping HOE.
Redmond teaches (fig 3),
furthermore comprising: a stop element (light block 318, col 9, lines 28-34) arranged to separate the light (“to minimize any unwanted interference”, col 9, lines 28-34)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to imaging HOE of Vojtisek-Thomae to have a stop of Redmond for the purpose of minimizing any unwanted interferences and specular reflections (col 9 lines 28-34).
Claim(s) 23,25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vojtisek et al (WO 2020/002491, date: 2020-01-02) in view of Harris et al (US 2007/0223074 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 21.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein the light-shaping HOE deflects the light along the beam path in reflection geometry wherein a reflection angle, at which the light-shaping HOE reflects the light along the beam path corresponds to the Brewster angle of a material of the substrate of the light-shaping HOE.
Vojtisek and Harris are related as HOE.
Harris teaches (fig 1,2)
wherein the light-shaping HOE (finished reflection hologram, master hologram, para 33) deflects the light along the beam path in reflection geometry wherein a reflection angle, at which the light-shaping HOE (finished reflection hologram, master hologram, para 33) reflects the light along the beam path corresponds to the Brewster angle of a material of the substrate of the light-shaping HOE (“Brewster's angle may be used as the scanning angle of incidence, which substantially eliminates any internal reflections of the scanning beam. This substantially eliminates Newton rings”, para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to light-shaping HOE of Vojtisek to have angle of incidence as Brewster’s angle of Harris for the purpose of eliminating any internal reflections (para 33) and unwanted polarizations.
Regarding Claim 25, Vojtisek teaches the optical system as claimed in claim 21.
However, Vojtisek does not teach
wherein an angle of incidence of the light along the beam path on the light-shaping HOE is chosen such that Fresnel reflections of the light are oriented away from the imaging HOE.
Vojtisek and Harris are related as HOE.
Harris teaches (fig 1,2)
wherein an angle of incidence of the light along the beam path on the light-shaping HOE (finished reflection hologram, master hologram, para 33) is chosen such that Fresnel reflections of the light are oriented away beam path. (“Brewster's angle may be used as the scanning angle of incidence, which substantially eliminates any internal reflections of the scanning beam. This substantially eliminates Newton rings”, para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam path to light-shaping HOE of Vojtisek to have a desired angle of incidence of Harris for the purpose of eliminating any internal reflections (para 33) and unwanted polarizations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2872 1/22/2026