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 1-19 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.
The phrase “detect a disturbance in a space of the holographic image” recited in claims 1 and 14 that is confusing since it is not clear how to define the “disturbance”. Specifically, it is not clear how to objectively define the disturbance. It is not known the disturbance is referred to what property? It is not clear what considered to be disturbance of a space? It is not known with respect to what reference is the disturbance measured or determined? It is not clear how to determine “disturbance” by changing of intensity since as shown in dependent claim 4, there is an iterative to modify the intensity of the wavefront to generate the hologram.
The phrase “a target image” recited in claims 4, 10 and 15 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be this target image and how does this target image logically and structurally relate to rest of the steps or components of the method or system recited in their respective base claim. The target image seems to be an arbitrary image.
The phrase “substantially converging to the target image” recited in claims 4, 10 and 15 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be “converging” to an image? It is also not clear what property is converting to the target image?
Furthermore, there is no logical and structural relationships between the steps recited in claims 4, 10 and 15 to their respective base claim.
The phrase “a micromirror device” recited in claim 19 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how does this micromirror device relate to other elements recited in the base claim.
The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite.
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, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Balaji et al (US 2021/0232093 A1) in view of the US patent application by McGaughan et al (US 2014/0232695 A1).
Balaji et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a system (Figure 1) that is comprised of a holographic projector (100) configured to project a holographic image (107), a processing element (111) serves as the at least one processor that is programmed or configured to determine an intensity of the displayed holographic image and detecting the noise of the displayed holographic image, that serves as the disturbance in a space of the holographic image based on a change in the intensity, (please see Figure 7).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include a rolling-shutter camera arranged to receive the light from the holographic image and to have the processing element in communication with the rolling shutter camera. However, Balaji et al does teach explicitly that an iteration process is included, (please see Figure 7), to determine the phase hologram as the hologram data provided to the phase light modulator (PLM) via the processing element (111) and PLM controller (109). This means the displayed holographic image is detected and being utilized in the iteration process.
McGaughan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a touch sensitive display device that is comprised of a holographic image projection module (200, Figure 1a) that projects a holographic image (150) with a projection image boundary (defined by line 257) that may be detected by rolling-shutter camera, (please see paragraph [0013]) such that a section or portion of the projected holographic image may be detected at a time. McGaughan et al teaches that the projected image may be received by the sensor or the rolling-shutter camera (260, Figure 1b) and to be send to image data signal processor for processing. This means that the processor is in communication with the rolling shutter camera.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of McGaughan et al to modify the system to specifically include a rolling-shutter camera to detect the displayed holographic image and the detected image intensity is communicated to the processing element for iteratively calculating the holographic image of a target image, specifically for the disturbance or noise be addressed, for the benefit of allowing a portion of the holographic image be iteratively calculated at a time.
With regard to claim 2, Balaji et al teaches to include a laser light source (101, please see paragraph [0028]), a phase or spatial light modulator, (105, please see paragraph [0019]) to receive light from the laser light source, a first lens (103) arranged between the laser light source and the spatial light modulator and a second lens arranged between the spatial light modulator (105) and an image plane formed by a reflection of the spatial light modulator.
With regard to claim 4, Balaji et al teaches the processing element or the processor to generate the hologram via an iterative algorithm that is comprised of the step of generating a random pattern (702) for display on the phase or spatial light modulator, a step of propagating a wavefront base on the random pattern from a plane associated with the spatial light modulator to the image plane (i.e. via the Fourier transformation 703), a step of replacing an amplitude or the intensity of the wavefront with a valued derived from a targe image (Itarget,k) to generate a new wavefront (717), a step of propagating the new wavefront from the image plane to the plane associated with the spatial or phase light modulator (i.e. via inverse Fourier transform, 713), and the steps are repeated until the current amplitude (707, with target information) is withing an error threshold of the amplitude of the goal image (715, please see paragraph [0046]). Balaji et al teaches that the intensity of the goal image is binarized, (please see paragraph [0044]), which means binarization step is also included in the iterative algorithm.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al and McGaughan et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Li (US 2020/0012234 A1).
The system with a holographic projector taught by Balaji et al in combination with the teachings of McGaughan et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 3, this reference does not teach explicitly to include an objective lens and an optical aperture. Li in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display wherein a projection objective lens, (please see Figure 9) that is arranged between the image plane and a scene of holographic image (i.e. at the screen) and a spatial filter serves as the optical aperture device configured to block a portion of the reflection of the spatial light modulator (SLM).
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Li to modify the holographic projector to further include a projection objective lens and a spatial filter or aperture arranged at the image plane to block a portion of the reflection from the spatial light modulator for the benefit of projecting the holographic image to desired image screen with noise reduction.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al and McGaughan et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Narasimhan et al (US 2022/0207761 A1).
The system with a holographic projector taught by Balaji et al in combination with the teachings of McGaughan et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 5-7, McGaughan et al teaches the rolling shutter camera (260, Figure 1a and 1b) is used to detect holographic image of a light curtain, (please see Figure 1a, paragraphs [0035] to [0037]). McGaughan et al teaches that the boundaries of the image light (150, Figure 1a) wherein the detecting the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image comprises detecting separate disturbance or noise in at least one light curtain (please see paragraph [0062]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the holographic image comprises a plurality of light curtains.
Narasimhan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a rolling-shutter camera that is capable of detecting object scene of a light curtain at a time among a plurality of light curtains, (please see paragraphs [0028] to [0030], Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Narasimhan et al to make rolling shutter camera taught by McGaughan et al to detect a plurality of light curtains of the holographic image wherein the detecting of the disturbance or noise in the space of the holographic image may be done one light curtain at time to reduce the iteration process.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, in light of Narasimhan et al the holographic image may comprise a first light curtain and a second light curtain that may be overlapped with each other, the thickness or depth of a first light curtain may be greater than a thickness or depth of a second light curtain. In light of Balaji et al, McGaughan et al and Narasimhan et al teaches that the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image is based on an intensity of the first light curtain and an intensity of the second light curtain.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Balaji et al (US 2021/0232093 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by McGaughan et al (US 2014/0232695 A1) and the US patent application publication by Li (US 2020/0012234 A1) .
Balaji et al teaches, with regard to claim 8, a system (Figure 1) that is comprised of a laser illumination source, (101, please see paragraph [0028]), a phase light modulator (105, PLM) or alternatively a spatial light modulator (SLM, please see paragraph [0019]), arranged to receive light from the laser light source and reflect at least a portion of the light, and at least one processing unit serves as the at least one processor configured to detect the holographic image, (please see Figure 1).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include a rolling-shutter camera arranged to capture light from the holographic image and the processing element does not explicitly to detect movement in a space of the holographic image based on data received from the rolling shutter camera. Balaji et al does teach explicitly that an iteration process is included, (please see Figure 7), to determine the phase hologram as the hologram data provided to the phase light modulator (PLM) via the processing element (111) and PLM controller (109). This means the displayed holographic image is detected and being utilized in the iteration process.
McGaughan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a touch sensitive display device that is comprised of a holographic image projection module (200, Figure 1a) that projects a holographic image (150) with a projection image boundary (defined by line 257) which may be detected by a rolling-shutter camera, (please see paragraph [0013]). Using the rolling shutter camera, a section or portion of the projected holographic image may be detected at a time. McGaughan et al teaches that the projected image received by the sensor or the rolling-shutter camera (260, Figure 1b) is to be send to image data signal processor to be processed. This means that the processor is in communication with the rolling shutter camera. Since the rolling shutter camera captures a section or portion of the displayed holographic image at a time, this implicitly mean only a section of the holographic image is being processed at a time and in a time sequence different portions of the holographic image being captured may be viewed as a time sequence change or movement of the holographic image.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of McGaughan et al to modify the system to specifically include a rolling-shutter camera to detect the displayed holographic image and the detected image intensity is communicated to the processing element for iteratively calculating the holographic image of a target image, specifically for the disturbance or noise be addressed, for the benefit of allowing a portion of the holographic image be iteratively calculated at a time.
These references further do not teach an objective lens.
Li in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display wherein a projection objective lens, (please see Figure 9) that is arranged to project a holographic image based on the at least a portion of the light reflected by the spatial light modulator (SLM).
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Li to modify the holographic projector to further include a projection objective lens for the benefit of projecting the holographic image to desired image screen.
With regard to claim 9, Balaji et al teaches the system to further comprises a first lens (103) arranged between the laser light source and the objective lens, (in light of Li Figure 9). The objective lens is arranged between an image plane of the second lens and a scene (or screen) of the holographic image, (please see Figure 9 of Li).
Li further teaches to include a spatial filter serves as the optical aperture device, arranged between the second lens and the objective lens configured to block a portion of the reflection of the spatial light modulator (SLM).
With regard to claim 10, Balaji et al teaches the processing element or the processor to generate the hologram via an iterative algorithm that is comprised of the step of generating a random pattern (702) for display on the phase or spatial light modulator, a step of propagating a wavefront base on the random pattern from a plane associated with the spatial light modulator to the image plane (i.e. via the Fourier transformation 703), a step of replacing an amplitude or the intensity of the wavefront with a valued derived from a target image (Itarget,k) to generate a new wavefront (717), a step of propagating the new wavefront from the image plane to the plane associated with the spatial or phase light modulator (i.e. via inverse Fourier transform, 713), and the steps are repeated until the current amplitude (707, with target information) is withing an error threshold of the amplitude of the goal image (715, please see paragraph [0046]). Balaji et al teaches that the intensity of the goal image is binarized, (please see paragraph [0044]), which means binarization step is also included in the iterative algorithm.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al, McGaughan et al and Li as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Narasimhan et al (US 2022/0207761 A1).
The system with a holographic projector taught by Balaji et al in combination with the teachings of McGaughan et al and Li as described in claim 8 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 11-13, McGaughan et al teaches the rolling shutter camera (260, Figure 1a and 1b) is used to detect holographic image of a light curtain, (please see Figure 1a, paragraphs [0035] to [0037]). McGaughan et al teaches that the boundaries of the image light (150, Figure 1a) wherein the detecting the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image comprises detecting separate disturbance or noise in at least one light curtain (please see paragraph [0062]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the holographic image comprises a plurality of light curtains.
Narasimhan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a rolling-shutter camera that is capable of detecting object scene of a light curtain at a time among a plurality of light curtains, (please see paragraphs [0028] to [0030], Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Narasimhan et al to make rolling shutter camera taught by McGaughan et al to detect a plurality of light curtains of the holographic image wherein the detecting of the disturbance or noise in the space of the holographic image may be done one light curtain at time to reduce the iteration process.
With regard to claims 12 and 13, in light of Narasimhan et al the holographic image may comprise a first light curtain and a second light curtain that may be overlapped with each other, the thickness or depth of a first light curtain may be greater than a thickness or depth of a second light curtain. In light of Balaji et al, McGaughan et al and Narasimhan et al teaches that the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image is based on an intensity of the first light curtain and an intensity of the second light curtain.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Balaji et al (US 2021/0232093 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by McGaughan et al (US 2014/0232695 A1).
Balaji et al teaches, with regard to claim 14, a method that is comprised of a step of generating a holographic image (please see Figure 7) with at least one processing element (111, Figure 1), a step of projecting the holographic image to a scene (107, Figure 1) with a holographic projector (100, Figure 1). Balaji et al teaches that the processing element is capable of detecting a disturbance in a space of the holographic image specifically of detecting the occurrence of noise, (please see Figure 7).
This reference has met all the limitations. It however does not teach explicitly to include the step of capturing at least a portion of the scene with a rolling shutter camera and the detection of disturbance is based on at least one frame received from the rolling shutter camera.
McGaughan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a touch sensitive display device that is comprised of a holographic image projection module (200, Figure 1a) that projects a holographic image (150) with a projection image boundary (defined by line 257) which may be detected by a rolling-shutter camera, (please see paragraph [0013]) such that a section or portion of the projected holographic image may be captured and detected at a time. McGaughan et al teaches that the projected image may be received by the sensor or the rolling-shutter camera (260, Figure 1b) and to be send to image data signal processor for processing. This means that the processor is in communication with the rolling shutter camera and the disturbance or noise in a space of the holographic image is based on at least one frame of image captured from the camera and communicated to the processor.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of McGaughan et al to modify the method to specifically include a rolling-shutter camera to capture the displayed holographic image at least a portion at a time and the detected image is communicated to the processing element for iteratively calculating the holographic image of a target image, specifically for the disturbance or noise be addressed, for the benefit of allowing a portion or a frame of the holographic image be iteratively calculated at a time.
With regard to claim 15, Balaji et al teaches the processing element or the processor to generate the hologram via an iterative algorithm that is comprised of the step of generating a random pattern (702) for display on the phase or spatial light modulator, a step of propagating a wavefront base on the random pattern from a plane associated with the spatial light modulator to the image plane (i.e. via the Fourier transformation 703), a step of replacing an amplitude or the intensity of the wavefront with a valued derived from a target image (Itarget,k) to generate a new wavefront (717), a step of propagating the new wavefront from the image plane to the plane associated with the spatial or phase light modulator (i.e. via inverse Fourier transform, 713), and the steps are repeated until the current amplitude (707, with target information) is withing an error threshold of the amplitude of the goal image (715, please see paragraph [0046]). Balaji et al teaches that the intensity of the goal image is binarized, (please see paragraph [0044]), which means binarization step is also included in the iterative algorithm.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al and McGaughan et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Narasimhan et al (US 2022/0207761 A1).
The system with a holographic projector taught by Balaji et al in combination with the teachings of McGaughan et al as described in claim 14 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 16-18, McGaughan et al teaches the rolling shutter camera (260, Figure 1a and 1b) is used to detect holographic image of a light curtain, (please see Figure 1a, paragraphs [0035] to [0037]). McGaughan et al teaches that the boundaries of the image light (150, Figure 1a) wherein the detecting the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image comprises detecting separate disturbance or noise in at least one light curtain (please see paragraph [0062]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the holographic image comprises a plurality of light curtains.
Narasimhan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a rolling-shutter camera that is capable of detecting object scene of a light curtain at a time among a plurality of light curtains, (please see paragraphs [0028] to [0030], Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Narasimhan et al to make rolling shutter camera taught by McGaughan et al to detect a plurality of light curtains of the holographic image wherein the detecting of the disturbance or noise in the space of the holographic image may be done one light curtain at time to reduce the iteration process.
With regard to claims 17 and 18, in light of Narasimhan et al the holographic image may comprise a first light curtain and a second light curtain that may be overlapped with each other, the thickness or depth of a first light curtain may be greater than a thickness or depth of a second light curtain. In light of Balaji et al, McGaughan et al and Narasimhan et al teaches that the disturbance or the noise in the space of the holographic image is based on an intensity of the first light curtain and an intensity of the second light curtain.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al and McGaughan et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Li (US 2020/0012234 A1).
The system with a holographic projector taught by Balaji et al in combination with the teachings of McGaughan et al as described in claim 14 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 19, this reference does not teach to blocking with an optical aperture device at least a portion of a reflection of a micromirror device of the holographic projector.
Li in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic display that is comprised a spatial filter serves as the optical aperture device and is configured to block a portion of the reflection of the spatial light modulator (SLM). Balaji et al teaches that the spatial light modulator may comprise a micromirror device, (please see paragraph [0019]).
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Li to modify the holographic projector to further include a spatial filter or aperture arranged at the image plane to block a portion of the reflection from the spatial light modulator or micromirror device for the benefit of projecting the holographic image to desired image screen with noise reduction.
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