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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-25 in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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) 12-18,21-22,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud-Goud (US 20090086296, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Renaud-Goud teaches (Figs. 4a,5,6,7b,8-9, [42,46,67-68]) A holographic direct view display (1) for a vehicle, the holographic direct view display comprising:
a display light source (8) configured to create at least partly coherent display light; and
a two-dimensional micromirror array (2 as seen in Fig. 7b) arranged opposite the display light source in a visual field of a user (at 15); wherein:
each micromirror is configured as an electrically actuatable display pixel that is translationally displaceable in a direction transverse to its mirror surface ([42], “...tilted around at least one axis and/or be axially displaced...”) in order to impress a phase shift for holographic reconstruction of a desired display image on the display light reflected thereon and additionally rotatable at least about its first axis of rotation in order to reflect the display light created by the display light source to a respective eye of the user in alternation ([68], “alternately”).
Renaud-Goud does not explicitly teach the display light source is arranged outside of a user display viewing angle that fills out a spatial region between a predetermined eyebox for the user's eyes and the micromirror array.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the display light source is arranged outside of a user display viewing angle that fills out a spatial region between a predetermined eyebox for the user's eyes and the micromirror array would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Renaud-Goud by having the display light source is arranged outside of a user display viewing angle that fills out a spatial region between a predetermined eyebox for the user's eyes and the micromirror array for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 13, Renaud-Goud further teaches ([41], “between 0 and 2.pi.”) The holographic direct view display according to claim 12, wherein:
any desired phase offset of between 0 and 2π is creatable between individual pixels by way of translational displacement.
Regarding claim 14, Renaud-Goud further teaches The holographic direct view display according to claim 13, wherein:
each individual micromirror is translationally displaceable within a displacement interval which, in orthogonal projection on an associated light propagation direction of the display light reflected thereon, substantially corresponds to half a predetermined wavelength of the at least partly coherent display light (so as to generate the phase shift of 2pi corresponding to the wavelength).
Regarding claim 15, Renaud-Goud further teaches The holographic direct view display according to claim 12, further comprising:
an eye-tracking device (22-23 in Figs. 5-6) configured to ascertain a current position of each eye of the user;
wherein each micromirror is controllable for rotation at least about its first axis of rotation, such that the display light created by the display light source is reflected by the micromirror array to the respective current position of a relevant eye of the user ([42], “...tilted around at least one axis and/or be axially displaced...”).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Renaud-Goud teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 12, and further teaches The holographic direct view display according to claim 12, wherein:
each micromirror is configured to optically image the display light source into the respective eye of the user (see claim 12 rejection above).
Renaud-Goud does not teach each micromirror is configured as a concave mirror.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having each micromirror is configured as a concave mirror would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices for providing refractive power.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the modified Renaud-Goud by having each micromirror is configured as a concave mirror for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Renaud-Goud teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 12, and further teaches The holographic direct view display according to claim 12, wherein:
each micromirror is configured to optically image the display light source into the respective eye of the user (see claim 12 rejection above).
Renaud-Goud does not teach each micromirror is configured as a Fresnel mirror with an optical function of a concave mirror.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having each micromirror is configured as a Fresnel mirror with an optical function of a concave mirror would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices for providing refractive power.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the modified Renaud-Goud by each micromirror is configured as a Fresnel mirror with an optical function of a concave mirror for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 18, Renaud-Goud further teaches The holographic direct view display according to claim 12, wherein:
the rotatability of each micromirror of the micromirror array at least about its first axis of rotation comprises a rotatability about the first axis of rotation and, crossed with the first axis of rotation, a second axis of rotation of the respective micromirror ([67], “two axes”).
Regarding claims 21-22, mutatis mutandis, Renaud-Goud further teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 12-13 rejections above.
Regarding claim 25, Renaud-Goud further teaches A control unit configured to automatically perform the method according to claim 21 ([3,69], “computer”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 19-20,23-24 is/are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding each of claims 19-20,23-24, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of each claim including the additional limitations therein, along with the other claimed limitations of each claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, 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 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights