DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 13/884,043, filed on 05/08/2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 04/08/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the light modulator device” in line 2. It is unclear if this recitation is referring to the spatial light modulator. For the purpose of continuing examination, it is assumed that the limitation is specific to the spatial light modulator. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun (USPG Pub No. 2014/0226193) in view of Kroll et al. (USPG Pub No. 2012/0092750), hereinafter “Kroll”.
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a near-eye display device (100) (see Fig. 1), comprising: a light source (10) generating a divergent wave front (Paragraph 21, Lines 4-6); a spatial light modulator (11) configured to receive light from the light source (10) and form an image (Paragraph 23, Lines 3-7); and a combiner comprising at least one holographic optical element (2) positioned to receive light from the spatial light modulator (11) and to redirect the light toward a viewing window (3-5) (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, Paragraph 23, Lines 3-16), the at least one holographic optical element (2) being positioned between the viewing window (3-5) and a view of an external environment to combine a view of the image formed by the spatial light modulator (11) and the view of the external environment (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, Paragraph 20). Sun discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify a spatial light modulator comprising a hologram. In the same field of endeavor, Kroll discloses a spatial light modulator comprising a hologram (Paragraph 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun with a spatial light modulator comprising a hologram of Kroll for the purpose of providing a higher quality holographic presentation (Paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 2, Sun and Kroll teach the near-eye display device set forth above for claim 1, Kroll further discloses wherein further comprising a controller in communication with the spatial light modulator, the controller being configured to control the spatial light modulator to modulate light controllably (Paragraphs 62-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the near-eye display device of Sun with the teachings of Kroll for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sun further discloses wherein the at least one holographic optical element (2) is designed such that a multiple image of the spatial light modulator (11) is generated, said multiple image being composed of segments (Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 13, Sun further discloses wherein the display device is designed as a head-mounted display (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun (USPG Pub No. 2014/0226193) in view of Kroll (USPG Pub No. 2012/0092750) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lacoste et al. (USPG Pub No. 2011/0157667), hereinafter “Lacoste”.
Regarding claim 3, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the controller is configured to control the light modulator device to correct for aberrations in segments of a generated multiple image of the spatial light modulator. In the same field of endeavor, Lacoste discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the light modulator device to correct for aberrations in segments of a generated multiple image of the spatial light modulator (see Fig. 3d, Paragraph 92). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein the controller is configured to control the light modulator device to correct for aberrations in segments of a generated multiple image of the spatial light modulator of Lacoste for the purpose of correcting aberrations in order to provide quality imaging with 3D effects (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 4, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the controller is configured to control the spatial light modulator to correct for aberrations by obtaining corrective computer-generated holograms. In the same field of endeavor, Lacoste discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the spatial light modulator to correct for aberrations by obtaining corrective computer-generated holograms (see Fig. 3d, Paragraph 92). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein the controller is configured to control the spatial light modulator to correct for aberrations by obtaining corrective computer-generated holograms of Lacoste for the purpose of correcting aberrations in order to provide quality imaging with 3D effects (Paragraph 92).
Claims 5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun (USPG Pub No. 2014/0226193) in view of Kroll (USPG Pub No. 2012/0092750) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haussler et al. (USP No. 8,149,266), hereinafter “Haussler”.
Regarding claim 5, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein an eye position and/or a viewing direction of an observer is detectable, where a holographic three-dimensional information can be tracked to an eye movement of the observer when an eye movement takes place. In the same field of endeavor, Haussler discloses wherein an eye position and/or a viewing direction of an observer is detectable (Col. 4, Lines 57-64), where a holographic three-dimensional information can be tracked to an eye movement of the observer when an eye movement takes place (Col. 2, Lines 42-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein an eye position and/or a viewing direction of an observer is detectable, where a holographic three-dimensional information can be tracked to an eye movement of the observer when an eye movement takes place of Haussler for the purpose of enlarging the visibility region (Col. 2, Lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 7, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein a multiple image of the spatial light modulator is generated, the multiple image comprises at least a defined number of segments and defines the size of a volume of view in which an encoded information is reconstructed for an observer. In the same field of endeavor, Haussler discloses wherein a multiple image of the spatial light modulator is generated, the multiple image comprises at least a defined number of segments and defines the size of a volume of view in which an encoded information is reconstructed for an observer (Col. 2, Lines 40-46, Col. 6, Lines 44-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein a multiple image of the spatial light modulator is generated, the multiple image comprises at least a defined number of segments and defines the size of a volume of view in which an encoded information is reconstructed for an observer of Haussler for the purpose of enlarging the visibility region (Col. 2, Lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 8, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the at least one holographic optical element is configured to select the desired direction of deflection by varying one or more properties of the incident light. In the same field of endeavor, Haussler discloses wherein the at least one holographic optical element is configured to select the desired direction of deflection by varying one or more properties of the incident light (Col. 5, Lines 23-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein the at least one holographic optical element is configured to select the desired direction of deflection by varying one or more properties of the incident light of Haussler for the purpose of enlarging the visibility region (Col. 2, Lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 9, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify where the at least one holographic optical element is designed to be controllable. In the same field of endeavor, Haussler discloses where the at least one holographic optical element is designed to be controllable (Col. 5, Lines 23-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with where the at least one holographic optical element is designed to be controllable of Haussler for the purpose of enlarging the visibility region (Col. 2, Lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 11, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein at least one filter is disposed in the optical path for filtering higher diffraction orders of the wave fronts modulated by the spatial light modulator. In the same field of endeavor, Haussler discloses wherein at least one filter is disposed in the optical path for filtering higher diffraction orders of the wave fronts modulated by the spatial light modulator (Col. 4, Lines 42-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein at least one filter is disposed in the optical path for filtering higher diffraction orders of the wave fronts modulated by the spatial light modulator of Haussler for the purpose of enlarging the visibility region (Col. 2, Lines 41-42).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun (USPG Pub No. 2014/0226193) in view of Kroll (USPG Pub No. 2012/0092750) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (USPG Pub No. 2010/0302499).
Regarding claim 10, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising a controllable tracking device which serves to track the viewing window to the eye movement controlled by that movement or the at least one holographic optical element is provided for a controlled tracking of the viewing window according to the eye movement. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses further comprising a controllable tracking device which serves to track the viewing window to the eye movement controlled by that movement or the at least one holographic optical element is provided for a controlled tracking of the viewing window according to the eye movement (Paragraphs 73, 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with further comprising a controllable tracking device which serves to track the viewing window to the eye movement controlled by that movement or the at least one holographic optical element is provided for a controlled tracking of the viewing window according to the eye movement of Watanabe for the purpose of achieving fast high-speed movement of the exit pupil (Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 12, Sun and Kroll disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein adjustment means are provided for adjusting the viewing window manually or automatically to the position of an eye pupil of an observer eye, and so to provide for the individual eye separation, for example. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses wherein adjustment means are provided for adjusting the viewing window manually or automatically to the position of an eye pupil of an observer eye, and so to provide for the individual eye separation, for example (Paragraphs 73, 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the display device of Sun and Kroll with wherein adjustment means are provided for adjusting the viewing window manually or automatically to the position of an eye pupil of an observer eye, and so to provide for the individual eye separation, for example of Watanabe for the purpose of achieving fast high-speed movement of the exit pupil (Paragraph 10).
Prior Art Citations
Pain et al. (WO 00/75733 A1), Yamasaki (USPG Pub No. 2005/0248852), and Buckley et al. (USPG Pub No. 2010/0165429) are each being cited herein to show a near-eye display device relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11/14/2025