The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a padding to the boundary” in which the article “the” causes an insufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “a padding to a boundary”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the determining an input light field” which appears to have a typographical issue/omission. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “the determining of an input light field”.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the same output power for the same input power” and “the majority of a target phase volume” in which the articles “the” causes an insufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this Action, the limitations are interpreted as “a same output power for a same input power” and “a majority of a target phase volume”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the majority of a target phase volume” in which the article “the” causes an insufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “a majority of a target phase volume”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 11, 13, 15 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2022/0091560 A1) in view of Futterer (US 2016/0327906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses (Figs. 1 – 3; Abstract; para. 0025 – 0039) a method of displaying a target light field (with an eyebox 114) using an image-replicating combiner 112 (“A replicating lightguide 112” at para. 0025) of a holographic display device, the method comprising:
displaying an input light field 108 (after a spatial light modulator 106) at an input location near to an input (upper) surface of the image-replicating combiner 112 (as seen in Fig. 1),
propagating the input light field 108 through the image-replicating combiner 112 between the input location and a viewing location (interfacing the eyebox 114); and
displaying a target light field 108’ at the viewing location.
Jang does not teach that the disclosed method can further comprises steps of calibration that is performed to form a look up table, the latter being subsequently use for pre-distorting the input light field 108 (by appropriately modifying an electrical input of the spatial light modulator 106 by using the look up table) so as to reduce/compensate image distortions caused by the image-replicating combiner 112. However, Futterer discloses (Figs. 3 and 6; Abstract; para. 0145, 0161 – 0164, and 0270 – 0276) a holographic display device that has essential structural features similar to those in the holographic display device of Jang and performing a method comprising:
displaying an input light field (after a spatial light modulator SLM) at an input location near to an input (left) surface of a light guide WG (as seen in Figs. 3 and 6; para. 0161),
propagating the input light field through the light guide WG between the input location and a viewing location (interfacing VW in Fig. 6); and
displaying a target light field at the viewing location.
Futterer expressly teaches (para. 0270 – 0276) that the disclosed method further comprises steps of calibration that is performed to form a look-up table, the latter being subsequently use for pre-distorting the input light field (by appropriately modifying an electrical input of the spatial light modulator SLM by using the look-up table) so as to reduce/compensate image distortions caused by the light guide WG and/or the SLM (para. 0276).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of Jang can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Futterer, calibration steps so as pre-distort the input light field (by appropriately modifying an electrical input of the spatial light modulator SLM) and thereby reduce/compensate image distortions caused by the image-replicating combiner and/or the SLM (“provide correction data recorded within the look-up table which are used to correct the hologram encoding of the SLM in a way to reduce the difference between theoretical three-dimensional (3D) holographic images and real, aberrated images. Thus, real values can be taken into account instead of pure theoretical values” at para. 0276 of Futterer).
The Jang – Futterer combination considers a method comprising a step of building look up tables which account for, and implicitly incorporate, a (aggregate) transfer function of the image-replicating combiner and/or the SLM, the transfer function describing the propagation of light through the image-replicating combiner in either the forward direction (between the input location and the viewing location) or the backward direction (between the viewing location and the input location) due to optical reciprocity. Furthermore, the application of such look-up table for pre-distorting the input light field is, in effect, the application of the transfer function for the backward direction of light between the viewing location and the input location so that, based on a distorted image at the viewing location, go back to the input location and pre-distort the input image at it.
As such, the method of the Jang – Futterer combination includes the steps of:
determining a target light field to be displayed at a viewing location;
determining a transfer function (by iterative calibration and creation of look-up tables) describing the propagation of light through the image-replicating combiner between the viewing location and an input location near to an input surface of the image-replicating combiner;
determining (pre-distorting) an input light field by applying the determined transfer function (via the look-up table) to the target light field (with reduced/compensated distortions); and
displaying the (pre-distorted) input light field at the input location.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Jang – Futterer combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claims 2 – 4, the Jang – Futterer combination considers that the input light filed is pre-distorted (by a corrective signal applied to the spatial light modulator) so as to compensate for a wide variety of possible distortions caused by the image-replicating combiner and/or the SLM, such as overlapping beams (for claim 2) or missing beams (for claim 3). Depending on a particular distortion, the corrective signal applied to the spatial light modulator either reduces/eliminates one of the overlapped replicas or increases power in an adjacent replica to compensate for a missing beam(s).
Regarding claim 5, the Jang – Futterer combination considers (e.g., Fig. 1 of Jang) that the target light field is at least as large as a pupil 116 of a viewer at the viewing location.
Regarding claim 8, the Jang – Futterer combination considers (Fig. 2 of Jang) that determining a position of a viewer's pupil 216 (with the eye-tracking system 232), wherein the viewing location is the determined position of the viewer's pupil 216.
Regarding claim 9, the Jang – Futterer combination considers (Fig. 1 of Jang) that the target light field comprises a plurality of separate light fields 108’ each having a respective viewing location, the method comprising:
determining a target light field (with reduced/eliminated distortions) and determining an (pre-distorted) input light field for each of the plurality of separate light fields (via the look-up tables); and
combining the input light fields for each of the plurality of separate light fields for display.
Regarding claim 10, both Jang (Abstract) and Futterer (Abstract) consider that the target light field and the input light field are holographic fields (both the amplitude and the phase are of importance and needed to be controlled).
Regarding claim 11, the Jang – Futterer combination considers that the target light field is a holographic light field (Abstract of Jang);
the viewing location is substantially constant (relative to the image-replicating combiner in a head-mounted display in Fig. 6 of Jang); and
the determining of an input light field uses a predetermined constant based on the propagation between the viewing location and the input location (the look-up table accounts for the propagation phase delay through the image-replicating combiner between the viewing location and the input location).
Regarding claim 13, the Jang – Futterer combination considers (e.g., Fig. 1 of Jang) that determining the transfer function (implicitly present in the look-up table) comprises determining that rays received from at least two different replications 108’ of the input light field 108 are to form the target light field.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the teachings of Jang and Futterer combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations of a corresponding display system, as detailed above for claim 1. Specifically, the Jang – Futterer combination considers a display system comprising (Fig. 2 of Jang):
an image-replicating combiner 212;
an image generating unit 203,206 arranged to provide an input 204 to the image-replicating combiner 212; and
a processing system 230 configured to cause the image generating unit 203,206 to display an (pre-distorted) input light field by:
determining a target light field to be displayed at a viewing location (using an eye-tracking system 232);
determining a transfer function (comprised in the look-up tables created according to the teachings of Futterer) describing the propagation of light through the image-replicating combiner between the viewing location and an input location near to an input surface of the image-replicating combiner;
determining an (pre-distorted) input light field by applying the determined transfer function to the target light field; and
displaying the (pre-distorted) input light field at the input location.
Further for claim 20, Jang teaches that the disclosed display system can be incorporated into a head-mounted display 600, as shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 16, the Jang – Futterer combination considers that the contemplated display system further comprises an eye-tracking system 232 (Fig. 2; para. 0033 of Jang) arranged to provide data indicative of the viewing position to the processing system 230.
Regarding claim 17, Jang teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) that the image-replicating combiner 112 is arranged to generate a plurality of replicated images 108’ of the input light field 108, and a combined phase volume of the plurality of replicated images covers the majority of a target phase volume (within the eye box 114).
Regarding claim 19, Jang renders obvious (e.g., Fig. 1) that a replication pitch of the image replicating combiner greater than half the diameter of a viewer's pupil 116 so that the replicated images 108’ arrive at different enough angles to create a virtual holographic image.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Futterer, and further in view of Lacoste et al (WO 2014/009717 A1).
Regarding claim 12, while Jang illustrates only embodiments wherein the input location is a surface that is parallel to the input surface of the image-replicating combiner 112, Maimone discloses (Figs. 1, 5, and 8; Abstract; 0039 – 0049, 0053, 0054, and 0057) a display system 100 comprising an image-replicating combiner 140,160 for creating holographic images, wherein the input location is a (inclined) surface that is not parallel to the input surface of the image-replicating combiner (its part 160).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the image-replicating combiner in Jang can produce multiple replicas by using, in accordance with the teachings of Maimone, multiple reflections within both the light guide and an external image replicator which are illuminated by inclined impingent light.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Futterer, and further in view of Maimone (US 2020/0064633 A1).
Regarding claim 18, while Jang generally suggests (Fig. 1) that multiple replicas should not overlap, Maimone expressly teaches such design consideration/criterion (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that multiple replicas created by the image-replicating combiner in Jang should not overlap, as generally rendered obvious by Jang and expressly taught by Maimone, in order to avoid mutual interference and image distortion (“Since multiple holograms are written into the recording medium 700, a care must be taken to avoid, or at least reduce, crosstalk between different phase profiles. When a light source is imaged by an “incorrect” phase profile, a ghost image may be formed. To reduce the crosstalk effect, angular selectivities of the phase profiles need to be carefully controlled … Any rays within the acceptance cone 840 must be accepted, i.e. refocused by the first profile 610, while any rays from the neighboring second virtual source 108′2 within a rejection cone 850 must be rejected to avoid crosstalk. In other words, the hologram defined by the first profile 610 should be recorded such that the acceptance cone 840 does not overlap with the rejection cone 850. This condition will ensure that one does not have a spatial position on the holographic combiner 660 where two multiplexed holograms both have angular selectivity for a common ray direction” at para. 0057 of Maimone).
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter pertaining to claims 6, 7, and 14 would be allowable, if Applicant rewrites them in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 6 and 7 is that the Jang – Futterer combination calibrates the display system without any particular theoretical analysis/modeling. As such, the limitations recited by claims 6 and 7 are not rendered obvious by the the Jang – Futterer combination, even though decomposition of optical fields in a set of plane waves and the application of zero boundary conditions are know in the art.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 14 is that the Jang – Futterer - Maimone combination teaches away from any overlap between adjacent replicas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0033856 A1
US 2018/0203230 A1
US 2017/0124928 A1
US 2022/0058997 A1
US 2017/0255013 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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 TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896