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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on August 17, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11 (with wrong claim indicator), and 12-19 and has canceled claims 2 and 13-14.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 15-21 remain pending in this application.
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 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(s) 1, and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Mossberg et al (US 2020/0200954 A1) in view of US patent application publication by Kim et al (US 2022/0270525 A1) and US patent application publication by Raring et al (US 2012/0314398 A1).
Claims 1, 3-7 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Mossberg et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a wide angle illumination device that is comprised of a diffraction grating (102, Figure 1) for providing a diffraction pattern, and an array of light emitting diodes (302) that may comprise a plurality of laser sources, (please see paragraph [0020]) that serves as the laser diode chip comprising a plurality of light emitters configured to emit a plurality of beamlets, (please see Figure 1), wherein each emitter of the plurality of emitters is arranged to form a respective beamlet wherein individual beamlets are incoherent with each other such that they form different respective speckle patterns, (please see paragraph [0020]).
Mossberg et al further teaches that illumination device is comprised of corresponding lenes with the light sources (302) serve as the optic configured to receive the plurality of beamlets and to form continuous beam in which beamlets of the plurality of beamlets are at least partially overlapped, (please see paragraphs [0027] and [0020]). Mossberg et al teaches that the different respective speckle patterns combined through superposition of intensity of the plurality of beamlets such that the superposition of the intensity of the respective speckle patterns would reduce noise, (please see paragraph [0039]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference does not teach explicitly that the illumination device is a holographic projector. Mossberg et al teaches that the beamlets (10) illuminates the diffraction grating (102) would be able to generate holographic feature (please see paragraph [0014]), but it does not teach explicitly to display a hologram of a picture. Kim et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display device wherein an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs, 110, Figure 1) to illuminate a spatial light modulator (SLM) encoded with hologram to generate or project holographic image to be viewed. If would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim et al to modify the diffraction grating of Mossberg et al to make the holographic feature comprises hologram of a picture for the benefit of providing holographic image from the illumination device. The illumination device therefore may be modified to serve as a holographic projector for the benefit of allowing holographic image of an object maybe projected and viewed.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “an edge-emitting laser diode chip comprising a plurality of ridges configured to emit a plurality of beamlets”.
Mossberg et al teaches that the light emitting diodes may comprise Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL, please see paragraphs [0020] and [0027]), but does not teach explicitly that the light emitting diodes comprises an edge-emitting laser diode chip comprises a plurality of ridges. However, laser diodes with a package as edge-emitting laser diode chip comprises plurality of ridges are well known in the art as explicitly taught by Raring et al. Raring et al teaches the edge-emitting laser diode chip comprises a plurality of cavity members or ridges (301, Figure 3 or 402, Figure 4) to emit a plurality of beamlets. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Raring et al to alternatively use art well-known edge-emitting laser diode to provide the plurality of beamlets.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a collimating optic”. Mossberg et al teaches that the corresponding lenes with the plurality of emitters (302) may comprise collimate optics or lenses for collimating the emitted beamlets, (please see paragraphs [0027] and [0028]). Kim et al also teaches to include a collimating lens (120, Figure 1) configured to collimate the plurality of beamlets emitted from the LED array.
With regard to amended claims 3 and 4, Raring et al teaches that each cavity member or ridge (301) has a width (303, Figure 3) that may have a dimension such as width could be less than 20 mm, (please see paragraph [0077]) which is less than 50 micrometers or less than 20 micrometers.
With regard to amended claims 5 and 6, Raring et al teaches that the distance separating one cavity member from another cavity that could be less than 500 micrometer or less than 200 micrometers, (please see paragraph [000077]).
With regard to amended claim 7, Mossberg et al teaches that the optic or the lenses may comprise collimating lens, (please see paragraph [0027]). Kim et al also teaches to include a collimating lens (120, Figure 1) configured to collimate the plurality of beamlets emitted from the LED array.
With regard to claim 8, in light of Raring et al (and amendment of the base claim 1) it is either inherently true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the overlap of the beamlets to be at least 50% of a dimension of each beamlet to optimize the superposition of the speckle patterns of the beamlets so that good reduction of speckle noise may be achieved.
With regard to claim 9, Kim et al teaches that the hologram is arranged to distribute content of the holographic reconstruction of the picture by angle such that different angular ranges of light diffracted by the hologram correspond to different spatial portions of the picture.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossberg et al, Kim et al and Raring et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Seder et al (US 2022/0066211 A1).
Mossberg et al teaches an illumination device in combined with the teachings of Kim et al and Raring et al to serve as a holographic projector as described in claim 1 above.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, these references do not teach explicitly to comprise a retina display.
Seder et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a speckle reduced retina holographic projector, (please see Figure 1). Seder et al teaches that the display may be a head up display, (HUD, please see paragraphs [0002] and [0058]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Seder et al to make the holographic projector a retina display that may be utilized in a head up display for the benefit of expanding the utility of the projector.
Claim(s) 12, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Seder et al (US 2022/0066211 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Raring et al (US 2012/0314398 A1).
Claim 12 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Seder et al teaches, with regard to claim 12, a speckle reduced direct retina holographic display that is comprised of a method of holographic projection for reducing noise in a retina display wherein the method comprises a beam expander (114, Figure 1) serves as the optic for receiving a beamlet, forming a continuous beam with a plurality of beamlets at least partially overlap and illuminating a spatial light modulator, (118, Figure 1) encoded a hologram of a picture, with the continuous beam thereby forming a holographic reconstruction of the picture.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Seder et al teaches that the plurality or multiple of the instance of the beamlets is achieved by the dither of a first spatial light modulator, (116, paragraph [0005]), but it does not teach the plurality of beamlets is received by the optic (114).
Claim 12 has been amended to include the phrase “comprising an edge-emitting laser diode the laser diode chip having a plurality of ridges… emitting from the laser diode chip a plurality of beamlets wherein each of the ridges emits a respective beamlet of the plurality of beamlets”.
Seder et al also does not teach explicitly that the light source comprises an edge-emitting laser diode having a plurality of ridges. However, laser diodes with a package as edge-emitting laser diode chip comprises plurality of ridges are well known in the art as explicitly taught by Raring et al. Raring et al teaches the edge-emitting laser diode chip comprises a plurality of cavity members or ridges (301, Figure 3 or 402, Figure 4) to emit a plurality of beamlets. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Raring et al to alternatively use art well-known edge-emitting laser diode to provide the plurality of beamlets.
Claim 12 has been amended to include the phrase “the collimating optic”. Seder teaches that the laser light source (112) may be a collimated light source which implies certain collimate optics is included to collimate the light beamlets from the laser light source, (please see paragraph [0068]).
Raring et al teaches that the plurality of laser ridges or cavity members may be arranged to have a separation distance from each other of about the width of the ridges, (please see paragraph [0077]) which means the beamlets may be at least partially overlap.
With regard to amended claims 15 and 16, Raring et al teaches that each cavity member or ridge (301) has a width (303, Figure 3) that may have a dimension such as width could be less than 20 mm, (please see paragraph [0077]) which is less than 50 micrometers or less than 20 micrometers.
With regard to amended claims 17 and 18, Raring et al teaches that the distance separating one cavity member from another cavity could be less than 500 micrometer or less than 200 micrometers, (please see paragraph [000077]).
With regard to claim 19, Seder et al teaches that the optic comprises a beam expander (114) that typical comprises a collimating lens. Seder et al also teaches that the laser light (112) generated collimated light which implicitly includes a collimating lens, (please see paragraph [0068]).
With regard to claim 20, in light of Raring et al (and amendment of the base claim 1) it is either inherently true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the overlap of the beamlets to be at least 50% of a dimension of each beamlet to optimize the superposition of the speckle patterns of the beamlets so that good reduction of speckle noise may be achieved.
With regard to claim 21, it is implicitly true that the hologram is arranged to distribute content of the holographic reconstruction of the picture by angle such that different angular ranges of light diffracted by the hologram correspond to different spatial portions of the picture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
As applicant has admitted that the edge-emitting laser diode with a plurality of ridges are very well known in the art, to include such specific laser diode as light source is considered not novel to overcome the rejections.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights