DETAILED ACTION
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 a reply filed 5/20/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 9/23/2024 and 5/17/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
In the response of 5/20/2026 from applicant on the restriction requirement on 3/25/2026, applicant's election with traverse of specie 1 (claims 1-11 and 14-15). Hence claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species are not mutually exclusive and no burden on the prior art search. This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an “appropriate showing” or “evidence”. See MPEP § 803. As stated in the prior Office Action, the claims of the present application contain distinct inventions. A search of these inventions may overlap, but the search of one invention does not include all the areas required for the others. A serious burden does exist, as different searches are required for each invention. Applicants claim four distinct groups of figs. 4-7 of the mixed reality display devices, corresponding to different embodiments in instant specification disclosure. The species are independent or distinct because two different combinations, not disclosed as capable of use together, having different structures/operation steps, different functions and different effects are independent. There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics in structures. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; and on the ground that one product cannot be make/used to manufacture another product); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, in lines 7-9: please amend “the diffractive optical element lenses being arranged in an array, and any of the diffractive optical element lenses being configured to converge a light” to “the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array being arranged in an array, and any of the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array being configured to converge a light”; in lines 12-14: please amend “the diffractive optical element lenses being arranged in an array, and any of the diffractive optical element lenses being configured to diverge or converge a light.” to “the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array being arranged in an array, and any of the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array being configured to diverge or converge a light.”. These amendments would clarity which limitation corresponds to the first diffractive optical element lens array and which corresponds to the second diffractive optical element lens array.
Appropriate correction is 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, 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 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432).
Regarding claim 1, Edwin teaches a mixed reality display device (figs. 10A-10H, abstract, an augmented reality head mounted display system), comprising:
a waveguide element (see annotated image, Edwin, fig. 10F, the transparent emissive display 1010 has been referred to as a waveguide element 1010; paragraph [0268] “the transparent emissive display 1010, to allow this light to form images in the user's eye that appear to be from the proper distance from the user”; paragraph [0278] “the transparent emissive display 1010 of FIG. 10H may further include one or more reflective or partially reflective optical elements layered adjacent the outer surface of the cathode”);
a first diffractive optical element lens array (fig. 10F, an inner diffractive waveplate lens arrays 1012 has been referred to as a first diffractive optical element lens array; paragraph [0727] “an inner (or proximal) diffractive waveplate lens or lenslet array 1012”) located on a first side of the waveguide element (see annotated image, Edwin, fig. 10F, the inner diffractive waveplate lens arrays 1012 located on the first side of the waveguide element 1010) facing a human eye (fig. 10F, the human eye 210), the first diffractive optical element lens array (the inner diffractive waveplate lens arrays 1012) comprising a plurality of diffractive optical element lenses (see fig. 10F, paragraph [0272] “diffractive waveplate lenses or lens arrays comprise liquid crystal”; thus, the first diffractive optical element lens array 1012 comprising a plurality of diffractive optical element lenses), the diffractive optical element lenses being arranged in an array (see fig. 10F, the diffractive optical element lenses 1012 being arranged in an array; since the inner diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1012), and any of the diffractive optical element lenses (the 1012) being configured to converge a light (see paragraph [0272] “diffractive waveplate lenses or lens arrays comprise liquid crystal. Diffractive waveplate lenses or lens arrays may provide optical power”; paragraph [0273] “the inner waveplate lens array 1012 may have positive optical power that will modify the wavefront of the light from the surrounding environment 510”; since the inner waveplate lens array 1012 have positive optical power, any of the diffractive optical element lenses 1012 being configured to converge light); and
a second diffractive optical element lens array (fig. 10F, an outer diffractive waveplate lens arrays 1014 has been referred to as a second diffractive optical element lens array; paragraph [0272] “an outer (or distal) diffractive waveplate lens or lenslet array 1014”) located on a second side of the waveguide element opposite to the first side (see annotated image, Edwin, fig. 10F, the outer diffractive waveplate lens arrays 1014 located on the second side of the waveguide element 1014 opposite to the first side), the second diffractive optical element lens array (the 1014) comprising a plurality of diffractive optical element lenses (see fig. 10F, outer diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1014”; thus, the second diffractive optical element lens array 1014 comprising a plurality of diffractive optical element lenses), the diffractive optical element lenses being arranged in an array (see fig. 10F, the diffractive optical element lenses 1014 being arranged in an array), and any of the diffractive optical element lenses being configured to diverge or converge a light (see paragraph [0273] “the outer waveplate lens array 1014 has equal and opposite optical power as the inner waveplate lens array”--- the outer waveplate lens array 1014 has negative optical power; thus, any of the diffractive optical element lenses 1014 being configured to diverge light).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
1336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Edwin teaches an image light source (Edwin, fig. 10F, the transparent emissive display 1010 is an image light source) located in the waveguide element (see annotated image, Edwin, fig. 10F, paragraph [0268] “ transparent emissive display 1010, to allow this light to form images in the user's eye that appear to be from the proper distance from the user”), Edwin does not explicitly disclose that the image light source is for total internal reflection on an image to be transferred.
However, Kress teaches the analogous virtual display system that includes a waveguide (see Kress, paragraph [0024], FIG. 19 shows a simplified side view of an illustrative virtual display system that includes a waveguide-based optical combiner that may be used in an HMD device), and further teaches wherein an image light source (fig. 19, the input coupler 1925 has been referred to as an image light source) located in the waveguide element (fig. 19, the waveguide 1820), and for total internal reflection on an image to be transferred (Kress, fig. 19, paragraph [0081] “The virtual image light is in-coupled to the waveguide by an input coupler 1925 and propagated through the waveguide in total internal reflection. The image light is out-coupled from the waveguide by an output coupler 1930”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Edwin to have the specific waveguide as taught by Kress for the purpose to combine real-world and virtual-world images into a single display (Kress, paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 8, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein one of the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array and one in the corresponding position of the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array together compose a afocal system (Edwin, fig. 10F, paragraph [0273] “the outer waveplate lens array and the inner waveplate lens array may form an afocal system”; thus, having one of the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array and one in the corresponding position of the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array together compose a afocal system).
Regarding claim 11, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein there is an air layer between the second diffractive optical element lens array and the waveguide element (see Edwin, fig. 10F, there is an air between the outer waveplate lens array 1014 and the waveguide element 1010).
Claims 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432), and further in view of Liu et al. (US20220326532).
Regarding claim 2, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see Edwin, fig. 10F, since the inner diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1012, the diffractive optical element lenses 1012 being arranged in a form of an array).
Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film.
However, Liu teaches the analogous head-mounted display (paragraph [0003] “This application relates to the optical field, and in particular, to a diffractive image combiner, a display device module, and a head-mounted display device”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array (see Liu, paragraph [0016], the first DOE has been referred to as the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (see Liu, paragraph [0016] “the first DOE is a micro-nano optical component, and includes a volume holographic grating VHG, a micro lens array”) formed in a recording of an interference (paragraph [0118], performing interference exposure) between a plane wave (see Liu, fig. 10a, parallel light has been referred to as a plane wave) and a spherical wave (see Liu, fig. 10a, converged spherical wave) by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film (paragraph [0118] “each VHG grating may be manufactured by performing interference exposure on a photopolymer film material by using a converged spherical wave and parallel light waves at a specific inclination angle. Refer to FIG. 10a . Both the two VHG gratings need to meet a condition that corresponding incidence points of an incident light ray that meets a Bragg condition in a second VHG grating and a first VHG grating have a same grating vector”; further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); thus, the VHG grating by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film), such that the diffractive optical element lenses (paragraph [0016] the first DOE) are composed in a form of an array (paragraph [0016] “a micro lens array”). (note: the limitations of “are composed …formed …by repeating the above step” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lens array of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array as taught by Liu for the purpose to have a pupil expansion effect can be implemented without crosstalk while a value of a system field of view is kept unchanged (Liu, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see Edwin, fig. 10F, since the outer diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1014, such that the diffractive optical element lenses 1014 are composed in a form of an array).
Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film.
However, Liu teaches the analogous head-mounted display (paragraph [0003] “This application relates to the optical field, and in particular, to a diffractive image combiner, a display device module, and a head-mounted display device”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array (see Liu, paragraph [0016], the second DOE has been referred to as the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (see Liu, paragraph [0016] “the second DOE is a micro-nano optical component, and includes a volume holographic grating VHG, a micro lens array”) formed in a recording of an interference (paragraph [0118], performing interference exposure) between a plane wave (see Liu, fig. 10a, parallel light has been referred to as a plane wave) and a spherical wave (see Liu, fig. 10a, converged spherical wave) by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film (paragraph [0118] “each VHG grating may be manufactured by performing interference exposure on a photopolymer film material by using a converged spherical wave and parallel light waves at a specific inclination angle. Refer to FIG. 10a. Both the two VHG gratings need to meet a condition that corresponding incidence points of an incident light ray that meets a Bragg condition in a second VHG grating and a first VHG grating have a same grating vector”; further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); thus, the VHG grating by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film), such that the diffractive optical element lenses (paragraph [0016] the second DOE) are composed in a form of an array (paragraph [0016] “a micro lens array”). (note: the limitations of “are composed …formed …by repeating the above step” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lens array of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array as taught by Liu for the purpose to have a pupil expansion effect can be implemented without crosstalk while a value of a system field of view is kept unchanged (Liu, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a spherical wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array.
However, Liu teaches the analogous head-mounted display (paragraph [0003] “This application relates to the optical field, and in particular, to a diffractive image combiner, a display device module, and a head-mounted display device”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array (see Liu, paragraph [0016], the second DOE has been referred to as the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (see Liu, paragraph [0016] “the second DOE is a micro-nano optical component, and includes a volume holographic grating VHG, a micro lens array”) formed in a recording of an interference between a spherical wave and a spherical wave (see Liu, fig. 10b, the volume holographic film materials formed in a recording of an interference between a converged spherical wave and diverged spherical wave; as described in paragraph [0139] “To implement off-axis light ray convergence function, the diffractive image combiner, DIC, component may be processed and manufactured by performing interference exposure on a volume holographic film material on two sides of the volume holographic film material at a specific inclination angle by using one converged spherical wave, generated after parallel light waves pass through a convex lens, and one diverged spherical wave, generated after parallel light waves pass through a concave lens. Refer to FIG. 10b. Both the two VHG gratings need to meet a condition that corresponding incidence points of an incident light ray that meets a Bragg condition in a second VHG grating and a first VHG grating have a same grating vector”) by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film (paragraph [0118] “each VHG grating may be manufactured by performing interference exposure on a photopolymer film material”; further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); thus, the VHG grating by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film), such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (paragraph [0016] “a micro lens array”). (note: the limitations of “are composed …formed in…by repeating the above step” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lens array of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a spherical wave and a spherical wave by repeating the above step at different positions in a same holographic photosensitive film, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array as taught by Liu for the purpose to have a pupil expansion effect can be implemented without crosstalk while a value of a system field of view is kept unchanged (Liu, paragraph [0022]).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432), and further in view of Xing et al. (CN106125318A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 3, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see fig. 10F, since the inner diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1012, the diffractive optical element lenses 1012 being arranged in a form of an array).
Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array.
However, Xing teaches the analogous diffractive optical element lenses (Xing, paragraph [0006] “Holographic optical elements are optical elements made based on the principle of reflective volume holography”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array (see Xing, paragraph [0009] “a microlens array holographic optical element”) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (Xing, paragraph [0006] “Holographic optical elements are optical elements made based on the principle of reflective volume holography”) formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array (see Xing, fig. 1, paragraph [0009], parallel light wave 2 interferes with the converging spherical wave array, and the interference fringes are recorded by the holographic material. After post-processing, the transparent substrate and the holographic material become the microlens array holographic optical element), such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (paragraph [0009] “the holographic material become the microlens array holographic optical element”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lenses of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the first diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array as taught by Xing for the purpose to have advantages such as continuous viewpoint, full parallax, no eye fatigue, and no need for auxiliary equipment (Xing, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see fig. 10F, since the outer diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1014, such that the diffractive optical element lenses 1014 are composed in a form of an array).
Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array.
However, Xing teaches the analogous diffractive optical element lenses (Xing, paragraph [0006] “Holographic optical elements are optical elements made based on the principle of reflective volume holography”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array (see Xing, paragraph [0009] “a microlens array holographic optical element”) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (Xing, paragraph [0006] “Holographic optical elements are optical elements made based on the principle of reflective volume holography”) formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array (see Xing, fig. 1, paragraph [0009], parallel light wave 2 interferes with the converging spherical wave array, and the interference fringes are recorded by the holographic material. After post-processing, the transparent substrate and the holographic material become the microlens array holographic optical element), such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (paragraph [0009] “the holographic material become the microlens array holographic optical element”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lenses of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a plane wave and a spherical wave array as taught by Xing for the purpose to have advantages such as continuous viewpoint, full parallax, no eye fatigue, and no need for auxiliary equipment (Xing, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432), and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Dual-View Integral Imaging 3D Display Based on Multiplexed Lens-Array Holographic Optical Element”, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3852).
Regarding claim 7, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Edwin further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array, such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see fig. 10F, since the outer diffractive waveplate lens is lenslet array 1014, such that the diffractive optical element lenses 1014 are composed in a form of an array).
Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a spherical wave array and a spherical wave array.
However, Zhang teaches the analogous diffractive optical element lenses (Zhang, fig. 3, MHOE, abstract, “multiplexed lens-array holographic optical element (MHOE). A MHOE is a volume holographic optical element obtained by multiplexing technology”), and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array (Zhang, fig. 3, multiplexed lens-array holographic optical element, MHOE has been referred to as the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array) are composed from a volume holographic optical element (abstract, “A MHOE is a volume holographic optical element obtained by multiplexing technology”) formed in a recording of an interference (page 3, Sec. 2.2, “The spherical wavefront array consists of many small spherical waves, and the interference fringes are recorded on the holographic material. Each elemental lens in the MHOE is generated by the interference of a large spherical wave (reference beam) and a small spherical wave”) between a spherical wave array (see Zhang, fig. 3, spherical wavefront array II) and a spherical wave array (see Zhang, fig. 3, spherical wavefront array I), such that the diffractive optical element lenses are composed in a form of an array (see Zhang, fig. 13, such that the MHOE are composed in a form of an array).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lenses of Edwin to have the diffractive optical element lenses in the second diffractive optical element lens array are composed from a volume holographic optical element formed in a recording of an interference between a spherical wave array and a spherical wave array as taught by Zhang for the purpose to have advantages such as continuous viewpoint, full parallax, no eye fatigue, and no need for auxiliary equipment (Xing, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432), and further in view of Takemori et al. (US20050030603).
Regarding claim 9, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 8, but Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the afocal system is a beam condensing system.
However, Takemori teaches the analogous virtual image (Takemori, fig. 1, as described in paragraph [0059] “One element hologram reproduces a virtual image of one image in a plurality of images displayed on the spatial optical modulating element 6. Accordingly, it can be regarded that the pixels forming the virtual image 13 is reproduced by the luminous flux from corresponding element holograms”), and further teaches wherein the afocal system (Takemori, fig. 1, from the spatial optical modulating element 6 to photosensitive material 11 has been referred to as the afocal system) is a beam condensing system (see Takemori, fig. 1, paragraph [0043] “it is assumed that twelve points where the optical axis of each lens of the lens array 7 crosses with the front-side focal plane 8 of the lens 9 are the twelve images. Almost all luminous flux passes the exposing range 13 through the reducing optical system (lenses 9 and 10) constituted of afocal lens optical system to form 12 reduced images on the photosensitive material 11; thus 12 element holograms are made.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the afocal system of Edwin to have the specific function of afocal system as taught by Takemori for the purpose to provide a method for producing holograms capable of reducing noises observed in reproduced images (Takemori, paragraph [0023]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Edwin et al. (US20190107719) in view of Kress et al. (US20230273432), and further in view of Zhao (CN112014974A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 14, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first diffractive optical element lens array is a holographic optical element.
However, Zhao teaches the analogous diffractive optical element lens array (Zhao, abstract, the invention relates to a dual-channel near-to-eye light field display system based on a polarizer holographic microlens array), and further teaches wherein the first diffractive optical element lens array (see Zhao, paragraph [0037], a left-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 32 has been referred to as the first diffractive optical element lens array) is a holographic optical element (paragraph [0037] “The polarizer holographic grating array module 3 includes a glass substrate 31, a left-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 32, and a right-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 33”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lens array of Edwin to have the specific element as taught by Zhao for the purpose of a light field reconstruction in a large depth-of field range can be conducted, monocular continuous focusing is achieved, and the convergence angle conflict problem of binocular adjustment is relieved (Zhao, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, combination Edwin-Kress discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Edwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the second diffractive optical element lens array is a holographic optical element.
However, Zhao teaches the analogous diffractive optical element lens array (Zhao, abstract, the invention relates to a dual-channel near-to-eye light field display system based on a polarizer holographic microlens array), and further teaches wherein the second diffractive optical element lens array (see Zhao, paragraph [0037], a right-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 33 has been referred to as the first diffractive optical element lens array) is a holographic optical element (paragraph [0037] “The polarizer holographic grating array module 3 includes a glass substrate 31, a left-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 32, and a right-handed circularly polarized sensitive microlens array grating 33”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element lens array of Edwin to have the specific element as taught by Zhao for the purpose of a light field reconstruction in a large depth-of field range can be conducted, monocular continuous focusing is achieved, and the convergence angle conflict problem of binocular adjustment is relieved (Zhao, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding wherein an angular magnification M of the afocal system is expressed by the following calculation formula:
M
=
f
1
f
1
-
t
wherein, f1 is a focal length of the first diffractive optical element lens array, t is an effective distance between the first diffractive optical element lens array and the second diffractive optical element lens array, and a value of the effective distance is equal to a geometrical distance between the first diffractive optical element lens array and the second diffractive optical element lens array divided by a refractive index of a medium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Alexander et al. US20180373045 (Figs. 1-2), Delboulbe et al. US6246521 (Fig. 8), Pyun et al. US20130050789 (Fig. 2), He et al. US20230251486 (Figs. 1A-4), and Ma et al. US20140118829 (Figs. 3A-3B) teach a diffractive optical element lens array as described in Claim 1, but none of them satisfy the conditional expression of claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights