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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/03/2026. Claims 1-14, 16, 18-20 remain pending with claims 1, 12 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicants made one main argument. Kollin is entirely silent, however, with respect to “a first box representing a first field of view…having a first dimension and being projected in…[a]…first color,” and “a second box representing a second field of view…having a second dimension and being projected in…[a]…second color,” as recited in claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive as the instant Application Specification does not even support the features of “a first illumination source illuminating a first color” in line 4, “the first box having a first dimension and being projected in the first color” in lines 5-7.
Furthermore, Kollin clearly teaches the amendments in claim 1 as indicated below in the updated rejection.
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 1-14, 16, 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
RE claim 1, the limitation of that “a first illumination source illuminating a first color” in line 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
RE claim 1, the limitation of that “the first box having a first dimension and being projected in the first color” in lines 5-7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are depending on claim 1 and therefore are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
RE claim 12, the limitation of that “a first illumination source illuminating a first color” in line 2 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
RE claim 12, the limitation of that “the first box having a first dimension and being projected in the first color” in lines 4-5 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claims 13-14 are depending on claim 12 and therefore are rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
RE claim 16, the limitation of that “the first box having a first dimension and being projected in a first color” in lines 5-6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
RE claim 16, the limitation of that “a second illumination source that illuminating a second color” in lines 8-9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
RE claim 16, the limitation of that “the second box having a second dimension and being projected in the second color” in lines 10-11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are depending on claim 16 and therefore are rejected on the same basis as claim 16.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kollin et al (USPN 10,210,844), hereinafter as Kollin.
RE claims 1, 12 and 16, Kollin discloses that a system and its operating method (see figure 2 and column 3 lines 54-67; i.e., optical system 200) comprising: a transparent combining optic comprising a holographic optical element (HOE) (see figure 2 and column 3 lines 29-35, 54-67; i.e., holographic optical element 208, see-through holographic display system), wherein the transparent combining optic is configured to: diffract light, from a first illumination source illuminating a first color, to project a first virtual image viewable in a non-pupil-forming eyebox (see figure 2 and column 4 lines 4-17, column 1 lines 57-64, column 5 lines 13-35; i.e., as phase modulating image producing panel 210 may be effectively broken into many holograms 210a, and each hologram 210a may be responsible for forming one part of the divided image using the light diffracted by the phase modulating image producing panel 210 illuminating first color via color mask, thus, the phase modulating image producing panel 210 to diffract light from light source 202 to form a first virtual image via first digital hologram 210a, and the phase modulating image producing panel 210 used for forming the plurality of digital holograms 210a is located out of the user’s field of view, or eyebox may be angularly spaced by 20 degrees from a center, viewable from a non-pupil-forming eyebox, wherein the diffracted light is transmitted through the holographic optical element 208, and the light is generated by an illumination source 202), the first virtual image being a first box representing a first field of view, the first box having a first dimension and being projected in the first color (see column 5 lines 16-35, column 7 lines 44-60, column 8 lines 20-23, column 4 lines 1-26; i.e., first hologram 210a forming a first virtual image located out of user’s field of view or first box, each hologram pixel having its spacing or dimension, and being projected in the first color via the color mask covered on it); and diffract additional light, from a second illumination source illuminating a second color, to project a second virtual image viewable in the non-pupil-forming eyebox (see figure 2 and column 3 lines 54-67, column 4 lines 1-26, column 1 lines 57-64, column 5 lines 13-15; i.e., since phase modulating image producing panel 210 may be effectively broken into many holograms 210a, and each hologram may be responsible for forming one part of the image using the light diffracted by the phase modulating image producing panel 210 illuminating second color via color mask ; therefore, a different part of the divided image can be regarded as a second virtual image viewable in the non-pupil-forming eyebox, diffracted by light from its corresponding hologram 210a, namely additional light), the second virtual image being a second box representing a second field of view, the second box having a second dimension and being projected in the second color (see column 5 lines 16-35, column 7 lines 44-60, column 8 lines 20-23, column 4 lines 1-26; i.e., first hologram 210a forming a first virtual image located out of user’s field of view or first box, each hologram pixel having its spacing or dimension, and being projected in the first color via the color mask covered on it).
RE claims 2 and 19, Kollin discloses that wherein each of the first virtual image and the second virtual image comprises at least one of: content defined by a distribution of the illumination source, or content defined by an encoding of the HOE (see column 5 lines 16-21, column 6 lines 34-37; i.e., a hologram encodes information, an amount of visual detail encoded in each hologram, or encoded image).
RE claims 4 and 20, Kollin discloses that wherein the HOE comprises at least one of: a point-source hologram, an etendue expansion hologram, a set of multiplexed holograms, a layered stack of multiple holograms, or a patterned array of multiple holograms (see figure 2 and column 4 lines 1-11; i.e., a plurality of holograms 210a).
RE claim 6, Kollin discloses that wherein the light and the additional light propagate through at least one of: the transparent combining optic before being diffract by the HOE, or free-space between the illumination source and the transparent combining optic (see figure 2 and column 3 lines 59-65; i.e., light propagating through the transparent input coupling prism 206 before diffracted by the HOE 208).
RE claim 7, Kollin discloses that wherein the light and additional light comprises non-replicating ray paths (see figure 2; i.e., non-replicating ray paths 218a, 218b, 218c).
RE claim 8, Kollin discloses that wherein the HOE comprises a point of illumination, and the first illumination source is positioned at the point of illumination (see figure 2; i.e., HOE 208 comprising of a point of illumination 206 illuminated by light source 202).
RE claim 9, Kollin discloses that wherein the HOE comprises a point of illumination, and the light propagates through the point of illumination (see figure 2; i.e., light from light source 202 propagating through the point of illumination 206).
RE claims 10 and 13, Kollin discloses that wherein a head-mounted device comprises the first illumination source, the second illumination source and the transparent combining optic (see figures 1&2 and column 2 lines 59-67, column 3 lines 14-17, 54-67; i.e., HMD 100 comprises illumination source 202 and transparent combining optic 200, or holographic display 106).
RE claim 11, Kollin discloses that wherein the first illumination source is positioned outside of a field of view of a user wearing a head-mounted device (see figure 2; i.e., the illumination source 202 positioned outside of a field of view from user’s eye 203).
RE claims 14 and 18, Kollin discloses that the virtual image is positioned to overlay a scene viewable through the transparent combining optic (see column 3 lines 24-35; i.e., virtual image positioned to overlay a scene captured by outward facing image sensors 108).
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.
Claims 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollin et al (USPN 10,210,844) in view of Rainouard et al (US 2022/0381968), hereinafter as Rainouard.
RE claim 3, Kollin discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Kollin does not specifically disclose that the first illumination source comprises an array of illumination sources.
Rainouard teaches that a wearable augmented-reality device for projecting image into the eye of a user (see sections [0002], [0008]), the projecting device comprising an emission area formed from a holographic film (see section [0058]), and a number of different laser sources 21 used simultaneously to illuminate different groups of light guides 11 (see sections [0086], [0124]). The motivation of Rainouard is to allow a real scene to be observed while complementary information is viewed (see section [0002]).
Kollin and Rainouard are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kollin by including the teaching from Rainouard in order to allow a real scene to be observed while complementary information is viewed.
RE claim 5, Kollin discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Kollin does not specifically disclose that wherein the transparent combining optic comprises a photosensitive holographic film.
Rainouard teaches that a wearable augmented-reality device for projecting image into the eye of a user (see sections [0002], [0008]), the projecting device comprising an emission area formed from a holographic film (see section [0058]), wherein the holographic film 14 is a photosensitive holographic film (see sections [0068], [0080]), and a number of different laser sources 21 used simultaneously to illuminate different groups of light guides 11 (see sections [0086], [0124]). The motivation of Rainouard is to allow a real scene to be observed while complementary information is viewed (see section [0002]).
Kollin and Rainouard are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kollin by including the teaching from Rainouard in order to allow a real scene to be observed while complementary information is viewed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to FRED TZENG whose telephone number is 571-272-7565. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays from 2:0 pm to 10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-7565 for After Final communications.
Informal 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/docs 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 (IN USA).
/FRED TZENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
FFT
May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights