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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, the limitation “[W]herein the holographic arrangement comprises at least two holographic elements which are arranged one directly behind another at least in portions in the beam path and are configured to be reflective for at least one defined wavelength and a defined angle of incidence range” is indefinite because the claim does not identify what the defined limit value is, how it is determined, or where it is defined. Without a numerical boundary, conditional expression, method of determination, or even an objective standard, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what wavelength or angle range falls within or outside the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examining the present application, the limitation has been construed as meaning “[W]herein the holographic arrangement comprises at least two holographic elements which are arranged one directly behind another at least in portions in the beam path and are configured to be reflective”.
Claims 5-6 are rejected because they depend upon claim 4; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 4.
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 (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 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 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20210191125 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a wavefront manipulator (Figs. 2, 7 and 12; Paras. [0007], [0013], [0018] and [0049] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 7 and 12) comprising:
a holographic arrangement (206 in Fig. 2; Para. [0037]) for arrangement in a beam path of a head-up display (200; Paras. [0028], [0036]) between a picture generating unit (202; Para. [0036]) and a projection surface (208; Para. [0038]),
wherein the holographic arrangement is configured for arrangement as the sole aberration correction element between the picture generating unit and the projection surface (Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 … configured to at least partially correct for optical aberrations”; the examiner considers 206 is the only aberration correction element between 202 and 208).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the holographic arrangement is configured for correcting a plurality of aberrations (Para. [0037] “correct for optical aberrations”).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Li further discloses wherein the holographic arrangement comprises a plurality of holograms which are configured to be transmissive and/or reflective (211 and 212 in Fig. 2; Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 includes first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs”).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Li further discloses wherein the holographic arrangement comprises at least two holographic elements (211 and 212 in Fig. 2; Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 includes first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs”) which are arranged one directly behind another at least in portions in the beam path (see Fig. 2) and are configured to be reflective (see 112(b) rejections above) (Para. [0037]), and
wherein a first holographic element (211) comprises at least one hologram (211) which is assigned to a hologram of a second holographic element (212) for reflection purposes (see Para. [0037] “first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs disposed optically in sequence … relaying the projected image”).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, and Li further discloses wherein the at least two holographic elements comprise reflection holograms recorded with two design wavefronts, of which at least one design wavefront is a freeform wavefront (see Figs. 2 and 7 teaching two lights 204A and 204B having wavefronts incident onto at least two holographic elements, creating two beams 205A and 205B, and at least one hologram being recorded or generated; Paras. [0039], [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, and Li further discloses wherein the at least two holographic elements comprise reflection holograms (211 and 212 in Fig. 2; Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 includes first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs”), wherein at least one reflection hologram is recorded with two design wavefronts (Figs. 2 and 7; see at least one of two beams 205A and 205B with wavefronts generated), and wherein at least one of the design wavefronts is configured such that it is generated in accordance with a function having a plurality of degrees of freedom (Para. [0024] “HOEs may be configured to redirect light beams propagating within a specific range of ray angles, to perform a desired function of focusing, collimation, aberration correction, and the like. Freeform HOEs can be constructed with a great degree of flexibility”).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Li further discloses wherein the holographic arrangement is configured for at least partly correcting at least one aberration which is caused by a curvature of the projection surface and/or by the picture generating unit and/or by the course of the beam path (see Para. [0033] teaching the holographic relay can compensate for optical aberrations due to off-axis impinging light) and/or by at least one optical element in the beam path and/or by a tilting of the image plane.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses a method (Figs. 2, 7 and 12; Paras. [0007], [0013], [0018] and [0049] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 7 and 12) for producing a holographic arrangement of a wavefront manipulator (the arrangement of 206 in Fig. 2; Paras. [0037], [0049]) for arrangement in a beam path of a head-up display (200; Paras. [0028], [0036]) between a picture generating unit (202; Para. [0036]) and a projection surface (208; Para. [0038]), wherein the holographic arrangement is configured for arrangement as the sole aberration correction element between the picture generating unit and the projection surface (see Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 … configured to at least partially correct for optical aberrations”; the examiner considers 206 is the only aberration correction element disposed between 202 and 208), the method comprising:
generating at least one hologram by exposure with at least one design wavefront configured as a freeform wavefront (see Figs. 2 and 7 teaching at least two beams 205A and 205B with wavefronts generated by exposure when the lights 204A and 204B incident on first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs”; Paras. [0039], [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the limitations of claim 9 above, and Li further discloses wherein the at least one freeform wavefront is generated via a freeform lens and/or a freeform mirror and/or a freeform hologram (Para. [0037] “the holographic relay 206 includes first 211 and second 212 reflective freeform HOEs”).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Li further discloses wherein an optical arrangement (200 in Fig. 2) or a head-up display (1200 in Fig. 12), the optical arrangement comprising:
a picture generating unit (1202 in Fig. 12; Para. [0058]), and
the wavefront manipulator (206 in Fig. 2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and Li further discloses wherein the optical arrangement does not comprise a mirror (see Figs. 2 and 12, in which the optical arrangement does not require a mirror, because holographic optical elements (HOEs) perform the function of redirecting image light).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and Li further discloses a head-up display (1200 in Fig. 12) comprising the optical arrangement of claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the limitations of claim 13 above, and Li further discloses wherein the head-up display does not comprise a mirror in the beam path proceeding from the picture generating unit as far as a projection surface (see Figs. 2 and 12, in which the optical arrangement does not require a mirror, because holographic optical elements (HOEs) perform the function of redirecting image light).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
In the Figure 2 embodiment, Li does not explicitly disclose the holographic arrangement is configured in curved fashion.
In the Figure 11 embodiment, however, Li teaches a holographic arrangement is configured in curved fashion (Fig. 11; Para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holographic arrangement embodiment as disclosed by Li, wherein the holographic arrangement is configured in curved fashion, for the purpose of further facilitating aberrations reduction (Li: Para. [0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871