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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of informalities.
Claim 16 recites the phrase: “determine sub-holograms for fa plurality of brightness zones”. It is believed that this phrase was intended to recite: “determine sub-holograms for a plurality of brightness zones”, which would appear to be consistent with the other independent Claims 1 and 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(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 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futterer, U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0223738 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Futterer discloses: A method comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
determining, by control circuitry, sub-holograms for a plurality of brightness zones (electronic circuit providing fast reallocation of individual sub-holograms, which are generated by defined object points in the three-dimensional [3D] space, and wherein individual sub-holograms 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d within the section of the hologram defined by the encoding regions have an essentially constant amplitude, the value of which is determined as a function of brightness and distance of the object points; paragraphs [0096], [0097], [0158], [0221] and FIGS. 1, 4A-4E of Futterer);
combining, by the control circuitry, the sub-holograms to produce a target hologram (the hologram [i.e., computer-generated hologram CGH] is obtained by the complex-valued sum of all sub-holograms 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d . . . 3n; paragraphs [0096], [0097], [0158], [0160], [0221] and FIGS. 1, 4A-4E, 5 of Futterer); and
transmitting, by the control circuitry, the target hologram (after being constructed from the multiplicity of individual sub-holograms 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, . . . 3n, the holograms computer-generated in this way are illuminated for reconstruction by the illumination unit 5 in conjunction with an optical system; see paragraphs [0096], [0097], [0158], [0160], [0221] and FIGS. 1, 4A-4E, 5 of Futterer, but see especially paragraph [0096] of Futterer).
Regarding Claim 14, Futterer discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein combining the sub-holograms to form the target hologram includes tiling the sub-holograms horizontally or vertically (the sub-holograms may be arranged as vertical stripes on the SLM [spatial light modulator]; paragraph [0134] of Futterer).
Regarding Claim 15, Futterer discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: further comprising adjusting an illumination control signal responsive to the target hologram (amplitude apodization and phase apodization can be used to optimize the intensity profile which propagates behind the entrance plane of the illumination unit 5, and wherein the complex-valued distribution of the apodization of the sub-holograms may be changed in regard to the change of the content; paragraphs [0098], [0126], [0173] of Futterer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are allowable. Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include the limitations of their respective base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 1, although the prior art discloses various systems, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising the combined features of:
PNG
media_image2.png
272
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
98
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 10 and 13, although the prior art discloses various methods, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
126
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above steps further comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
74
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image6.png
53
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 16, as best understood, although the prior art discloses various projectors, including:
PNG
media_image7.png
173
570
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising the combined features of:
PNG
media_image8.png
224
568
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 2-8, 11, 12 and 17-20, these claims each depend from Claim 1, Claim 10, or Claim 16, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of Reference
Although various text and figures of the cited reference have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of the reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 11:00AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights