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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The Amendment filed 08/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the amendments of claim 1 introducing no new matter have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant states “The amendments are supported by the application as originally filed and introduce no new matter. In particular, the additional subject matter of amended claim 1 is supported by original claim 9 together with, for example, paragraphs [0063] and [0072], paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and FIG. 15, and paragraph [0149], Table 3, row II, and FIG. 22. Paragraph [0063] describes optical channels arranged next to one another to enable line-by-line or column-by-column reconstruction, while paragraph [0072] describes different interaction elements displayed using different optical channels. Paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and FIG. 15 further describe a line-column array of different image motifs, and paragraph [0149], Table 3, row II, together with FIG. 22, describes interaction elements generated by respective optical channels in the illustrated line arrangement”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The language of the claims is treated as the “metes and bounds” of the subject matter for which protection is being sought. In this case, the limitation “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” contains AT LEAST 9 different explicit situations based on the grammatical combinations of two independent "and/or" phrases. The text uses "and/or" in two distinct instances: (i). Reconstruction method: " the hologram...reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column..." (3 possibilities) (ii). Element assignment: " different interaction elements...assigned to different rows and/or columns..." (3 possibilities). Because these two clauses describe complementary aspects of the system (how it is physically reconstructed vs. how the items are mapped), their variations multiply together to cover the following scenarios:
1. Row-Only Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 1: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 2: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 3: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
2. Column-Only Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 4: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 5: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 6: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
3. Combined Row & Column Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 7: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 8: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 9: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
Therefore, AT LEAST the situation 9 is not described by the originally filed specification. Paragraph [0063] of the instant application states that “ The optical channels can likewise be arranged in a grating structure, with the result that a line-by-line and column-by-column reconstruction is provided”. Paragraph [0072] of the instant application states that “Different interaction elements can be displayed by different optical channels. Paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and FIG. 15 (which could be an example of “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column”) of the instant application further describe a line-column array of different image motifs, and paragraph [0149], Table 3, row II, together with FIG. 22 (which could be an example of “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column”) of the instant application, describes interaction elements generated by respective optical channels in the illustrated line arrangement. However, none of the originally filed specification describes the situation 9: “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns”. For example, the Fig. 15 and 22 shows that the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column and the image motifs, which are the interaction elements, form a line-column array; however, the interaction elements shown in Fig. 15 and 22 don’t satisfy “different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns”. For example, the interaction elements 780-1 and 780-2 are two different interaction elements while the interaction elements 780-1 and 780-2 are assigned to same row with different columns.
Therefore, the claim limitation of “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” in both claims 1 and 18 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-14, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-19 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/29/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7 and 9, filed 08/28/2026, with respect that Vojtisek does not teach the new claim 20 have been considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/16/2026 (the rejections of claims 1 and 9-11 by US 2018/0131372 in Pages 11-12 of Office Action (with English translation) dated May 21, 2026 in related/corresponding Chinese Patent Application No. 202280030407.1.) prompted the new ground(s) of rejection for the claim 20 presented in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” (emphasis added) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the limitation of “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” in amended Claim 1 and amended Claim 18 are not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The limitation “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” contains AT LEAST 9 different explicit situations based on the grammatical combinations of two independent "and/or" phrases. The text uses "and/or" in two distinct instances: (i). Reconstruction method: " the hologram...reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column..." (3 possibilities) (ii). Element assignment: " different interaction elements...assigned to different rows and/or columns..." (3 possibilities). Because these two clauses describe complementary aspects of the system (how it is physically reconstructed vs. how the items are mapped), their variations multiply together to cover the following scenarios:
1. Row-Only Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 1: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 2: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 3: the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
2. Column-Only Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 4: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 5: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 6: the hologram is reconstructed column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
3. Combined Row & Column Reconstruction Scenarios (3)
• Situation 7: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different rows only.
• Situation 8: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to different columns only.
• Situation 9: the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns.
Therefore, AT LEAST the situation 9 is not described by the originally filed specification. Paragraph [0063] of the instant application states that “ The optical channels can likewise be arranged in a grating structure, with the result that a line-by-line and column-by-column reconstruction is provided”. Paragraph [0072] of the instant application states that “Different interaction elements can be displayed by different optical channels. Paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and FIG. 15 (which could be an example of “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column”) of the instant application further describe a line-column array of different image motifs, and paragraph [0149], Table 3, row II, together with FIG. 22 (which could be an example of “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column”) of the instant application, describes interaction elements generated by respective optical channels in the illustrated line arrangement. However, none of the originally filed specification describes the situation 9: “the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column; and different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns”. For example, the Fig. 15 and 22 shows that the hologram is reconstructed both row-by-row and column-by-column and the image motifs, which are the interaction elements, form a line-column array; however, the interaction elements shown in Fig. 15 and 22 don’t satisfy “different interaction elements are assigned to both different rows and columns”. For example, the interaction elements 780-1 and 780-2 are two different interaction elements while the interaction elements 780-1 and 780-2 are assigned to same row with different columns.
Therefore, the claim limitation of “the plurality of optical channels are arranged next to one another such that the hologram is reconstructed row-by-row and/or column-by-column, different interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements being assigned to different rows and/or columns, each row and/or column being reconstructed by the light of a respective one of the plurality of optical channels” in both claims 1 and 18 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. This is a new matter rejection.
Dependent claims 2-8, 12-17 and 19 would be rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter (US 2018/0131372).
Regarding claim 20, Salter teaches an optical system (Fig. 1-4, [0016-0032]), comprising:
at least one imaging holographic optical element (the element corresponding to the holographic film 26 in Fig. 3A-3B), HOE, configured to generate a floating hologram (the hologram corresponding to the projection image 42 in Fig. 3A-3B) on the basis of light (Fig. 3A-3B), said hologram being reconstructed in a volume outside of the at least one imaging HOE (Fig. 3A-3B);
a plurality of optical channels (the channels corresponding to the light sources 30 and 34 in Fig. 3A-3B) each comprising a light source (the light source 30 or 34 in Fig. 3A-3B) and a beam path (Fig. 34A-3B, [0019-0026]) configured to guide the light along the respective beam path to the at least one imaging HOE (the element corresponding to the holographic film 26 in Fig. 3A-3B); and
a controller (Fig. 4, [0027-0028]) configured to individually control the light sources (Fig. 4, [0027-0028], The memory 114 may include a variety of routines configured to vary the color and intensity emitted by the first and/or second light sources 30 and 34; use of multiple light sources (e.g., first and second light sources 30, 34) allows for the projected image 42 to change in appearance or functional identification of the switch 18) for the plurality of optical channels (Fig. 3A-4),
wherein the hologram (the hologram corresponding to the projection image 42 in Fig. 3A-3B) is configured to display a plurality of interaction elements as image motifs (Fig. 2-3B, [0021]),
wherein the image motifs (Fig. 2-3B, [0021]) of the plurality of interaction elements (Fig. 2-3B, [0021]) are generated by illuminating the at least one HOE with the light from the various beam paths (Fig. 3A-3B, [0019-0027]),
wherein at least two of the plurality of interaction elements are arranged in the volume with overlap (Fig. 3A-4, , [0027-0028], The memory 114 may include a variety of routines configured to vary the color and intensity emitted by the first and second light sources 30 and 34; use of multiple light sources (e.g., first and second light sources 30, 34) allows for the projected image 42 to change in appearance or functional identification of the switch 18).
wherein the controller (Fig. 4, [0027-0028]) is configured to display different interaction elements of the at least two interaction elements of the plurality of interaction elements, depending on the operating state of a control algorithm (Fig. 3A-4, , [0027-0028], The memory 114 may include a variety of routines configured to vary the color and intensity emitted by the first and second light sources 30 and/or 34; use of multiple light sources (e.g., first and second light sources 30, 34) allows for the projected image 42 to change in appearance or functional identification of the switch 18).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
