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 .
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 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first picture comprising a primary control region comprising the selected first pixel” and “the second picture comprising a primary control region comprising the second pixel”, it’s unclear from the language of the claim if the first picture and second picture comprise the same primary control region or different primary control regions. The specification states that “Herein, the primary control region of the first picture may be referred to as the first primary control region and the primary control region of the second picture may be referred to as the second primary control region.”, see page 10 lines 11-14, as such for the purposes of compact examination the first and second pictures of claim 1 will be interpretated to comprise a first primary control region and a second primary control region respectively. Additionally the examiner notes that independent claim 20 uses the terms “first primary control region” and “second primary control region”.
Regarding claim 5 and 6:
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the first primary control region" and “the first secondary control region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 rejected due to its dependance on claim 5.
R8garding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fourth pixel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that this is due to claim 8 being dependent on claim 3 instead of claim 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a fourth pixel”.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first and second primary control region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that correcting claim 1 as described above will also overcome this rejection of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1:
See for example closest prior art US 20200241473 A1 (Cooney)
Cooney discloses a holographic projection system for forming, at a replay plane, a holographic reconstruction of a picture comprising an array of pixels (See abstract and Fig. 4), the system comprising a detector arrangement (Fig. 4, detectors [413] and [415]) arranged to detect light received by a first detection area (Fig. 4, area for detection of detector [413]); wherein the holographic projection system is arranged to perform an optical alignment process comprising:
selecting a first pixel of the array of pixels; (Paras. [0012] and [0158], any pixel of the first control image region)
forming a first holographic reconstruction of a first picture, the first picture comprising a first primary control region comprising the selected first pixel; (Para. [0012], the first control image region is a part of the image generated by the projection system.)
moving the first holographic reconstruction with respect to the first detection area in a first dimension of the replay plane such that the first holographic reconstruction is moved between a plurality of positions; (Para. [0158], the position of the first control image region is changed by changing the diffractive pattern) and
determining a value for a parameter of the light received by the first detection area in each of the plurality of positions and comparing each respective determined parameter value to a threshold condition; (Para. [0160], it’s determined that the first control image region overlaps with the first detector region based off the intensity of detected light above an intensity threshold)
Cooney fails to disclose or suggest
wherein, if the threshold condition is not met over the plurality of positions, the holographic projection system is arranged to repeat the optical alignment process by: selecting a second pixel of the array of pixels that neighbors the first pixel; and forming a second holographic reconstruction of a second picture, the second picture comprising a second primary control region comprising the second pixel. (Cooney discloses a second picture for a secondary control region, see fig. 4 [415], however this is different from the second primary control region of the instant invention. Additionally Cooney does not teach that a selected second pixel neighbors the first pixel. The examiner also notes that while this limitation is repeating a part of the process present in Cooney with a second pixel that selecting the second pixel neighboring the first pixel leads to an advantage over simply repeating the steps of the optical alignment process, see the instant specification page 7 lines 35-37 and page 8 lines 1-6, by allowing the scan range (the range covered by the plurality of positions) to be reduced and prevent the holographic reconstruction from appearing jittery.)
Claims 2-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph due to their dependencies.
Claim 20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20:
Cooney discloses an optical alignment method for a holographic projection system arranged to form a holographic reconstruction of a picture comprising an array of pixels (See abstract and Fig. 4), the method comprising:
selecting a first pixel of the array of pixels; (Paras. [0012] and [0158], any pixel of the first control image region)
forming a first holographic reconstruction of a first picture, the first picture comprising a first primary control region comprising the selected first pixel; (Para. [0012], the first control image region is a part of the image generated by the projection system.)
moving the first holographic reconstruction with respect to the first detection area in a first dimension of the replay plane such that the first holographic reconstruction is moved between a plurality of positions; (Para. [0158], the position of the first control image region is changed by changing the diffractive pattern) and
determining a value for a parameter of the light received by a first detection area of a detector of the holographic projection system in each of the plurality of positions and comparing each respective determined parameter value to a threshold condition; (Para. [0160], it’s determined that the first control image region overlaps with the first detector region based off the intensity of detected light above an intensity threshold)
wherein, if the threshold condition is not met over the plurality of positions, the method comprises repeating the optical alignment process by: selecting a second pixel of the array of pixels that neighbors the first pixel; and forming a second holographic reconstruction of a second picture, the second picture comprising a second primary control region comprising the second pixel. (Cooney discloses a second picture for a secondary control region, see fig. 4 [415], however this is different from the second primary control region of the instant invention. Additionally Cooney does not teach that a selected second pixel neighbors the first pixel. The examiner also notes that while this limitation is repeating a part of the process present in Cooney with a second pixel that selecting the second pixel neighboring the first pixel leads to an advantage over simply repeating the steps of the optical alignment process, see the instant specification page 7 lines 35-37 and page 8 lines 1-6, by allowing the scan range (the range covered by the plurality of positions) to be reduced and prevent the holographic reconstruction from appearing jittery.)
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights