DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 12-13, 15 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the specification provides inadequate support for the iterative algorithm comprises iteratively minimizing a difference between a current solution and target image specified by the image data until a completion criterion is satisfied.
For examination purposes, the Examiner will regard the iterative algorithm comprises iteratively minimizing a difference between a current solution and target image specified by the image data until a completion criterion is satisfied as derive driving signals for element of the first spatial light modulator in a pattern suitable for reproducing the image of the image data.
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 1-5, 8-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 20090225234) in view of Mei (US 20020101644) in view of Richards (US 20140002514).
As per claim 1, Ward discloses a method for displaying images specified by image data ([0012]), the image data specifying luminance that varies from place to place on the images such that the images have darker areas and lighter areas ([0012]; [0080]-[0081]), the method comprising:
illuminating a phase modulator (Fig. 1, #14) with incident light (#13) and allowing the incident light to interact with the phase modulator (#14) to yield a desired light field ([0035]; [0080]-[0081]; [0102]-[0104]), and
projecting the desired light field onto an image plane (#29) to yield a depiction of the images ([0061]; [0080]; [0087]; [0102]-[0104]),
wherein the interaction with the phase modulator (#14) includes controlling the phase modulator to provide a combined freeform lens comprising a first phase pattern computed from the image data and a second phase pattern superimposed with the first phase pattern ([0063]; [0080]-[0081]; [0102]-[0104]), wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane ([0102]-[0104]),
wherein the projecting of the desired light field includes relaying the incident light on the image plane via physical optics (#26) to a refining module (#20) that minimizes visual artifacts and provides a refined output of a light field from the phase modulator ([0055]-[0061]; [0104]).
However, Ward does not explicitly teach the phase modulator is configured to modulate at least a phase of the incident light.
Mei teaches the phase modulator (Fig. 18, #92a-92b) is configured to modulate at least a phase of the incident light ([0085]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the phase modulator of Ward configured according to Wei so as to provide the ability to selectively alter the phase of the light from the light source (Wei: [0086]).
However, the prior art of Ward and Wei do not explicitly teach the interaction of the incident light with the phase modulator causes redirection of light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to lighter areas of the images.
Richards teaches the interaction of the incident light with the phase modulator causes redirection of light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to lighter areas of the images ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the interaction of light disclosed by Richards to the method of Ward in view of Wei so as to provide an improvement of contrast in a projection system.
As per claims 2 and 16, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method (display apparatus) of claim 1 (claim 15), wherein the image plane (Ward: #29) is positioned at a selected distance before the refining module (Ward: #20) to blur the light field before the refining module (Ward: [0059]-[0061]).
As per claim 3, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the image data comprises video data and the method further comprises controlling the phase modulator (Ward: #14) to, in sequence, vary the combined freeform lens based on successive frames of the image data (Ward: [0063]; [0080]-[0081]; [0102]-[0104]).
As per claim 4, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising refining the light field by further spatially modulating the light field to add high spatial frequency details (Ward: [0147]-[0150]; where color is functionally equivalent to high frequency detail).
As per claim 5, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising generating the first phase pattern by applying a forward algorithm to the image data (Ward: [0088]-[0097]).
As per claim 8, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the forward algorithm comprises an iterative algorithm (Ward: [0088]-[0097]).
As per claim 9, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the iterative algorithm comprises iteratively minimizing a difference between a current solution and target image specified by the image data until a completion criterion is satisfied (Ward: [0080]-[0081]).
As per claim 11, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising repeating the steps of:
illuminating the phase modulator with incident light and allowing the incident light to interact with the phase modulator to yield the light field (Ward: [0035]; [0104]), and projecting the light field onto a surface for each of a plurality of different colors of incident light in a time-multiplexed manner (Ward: [0129]).
As per claim 12, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising, within one frame, controlling on-times for the plurality of different colors of incident light to be different (Ward: [0129]; [0132]-[0133]).
As per claim 13, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising performing the claimed method separately for each of a plurality of colors of the incident light using a corresponding plurality of the phase modulators and combining a resulting plurality of light fields to yield a color image (Ward: [0132]-[0133]; [0142]).
As per claim 14, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the phase modulator (Ward: #14) comprises controlling the phase modulator to superimpose a plurality of phase patterns (Ward: [0035]; [0132]-[0133]; [0142]).
As per claim 15, Ward discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 1, #10) for displaying images specified by image data ([0012]), the image data specifying luminance that varies from place to place on the images such that the images have darker areas and lighter areas ([0012]; [0080]-[0081]), the display apparatus comprising:
a phase modulator (#14), and a light source (#12) arranged to illuminate the phase modulator (#14) with the incident light (#13; [0029]-[0035]),
wherein a control circuit is connected to control the phase modulator (#14) to provide a combined freeform lens comprising a first phase pattern computed from the image data and a second phase pattern superimposed with the first phase pattern ([0063]; [0080]-[0081]; [0102]-[0104]; where a control circuit is inherently present), wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern that focuses the incident light at an image plane ([0102]-[0104]), and wherein physical optics (#26) are arranged to relay a light field comprising light that has interacted with the phase modulator to a refining module ( #20; [0055]-[0061]; [0104]),
wherein the physical optics (#26) are configured to focus the light onto or adjacent to the refinement module (#20), wherein the refining module (#20) is configured to refine the incident light by minimizing visual artifacts and provide a refined output of a light field from the phase modulator ([0055]-[0061]; [0104]).
However, Ward does not explicitly teach the phase modulator is configured to modulate at least a phase of the incident light.
Mei teaches the phase modulator (Fig. 18, #92a-92b) is configured to modulate at least a phase of the incident light ([0085]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the phase modulator of Ward configured according to Wei so as to provide the ability to selectively alter the phase of the light from the light source (Wei: [0086]).
However, the prior art of Ward and Wei do not explicitly teach the phase modulator is controlled by the control circuit to cause redirection of light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to lighter areas of the images.
Richards teaches the phase modulator is controlled by the control circuit to cause redirection of light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to lighter areas of the images ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the interaction of light disclosed by Richards to the method of Ward in view of Wei so as to provide an improvement of contrast in a projection system.
As per claim 17, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the refining module comprises a spatial light modulator (Ward: #20) arranged to further spatially modulate the modified light field (Ward: [0104]).
As per claim 18, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control circuit is configured to generate the configuration of the freeform lens by processing the image data to yield parameters for a plurality of predefined optical elements and to control the phase modulator to emulate the plurality of predefined optical elements (Ward: [0063]; [0080]-[0081]; [0102]).
As per claim 19, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the display apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the optical elements comprise at least one of the following:
prisms, lenses, Fresnel lenses and/or cylindrical lenses (Ward: [0056]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards in view of Damberg (US 20140043352).
As per claim 6, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 5.
However, the prior art of Ward, Wei and Richards do not explicitly teach the forward algorithm comprises applying an inverse transform to the image data, the inverse transform inverting a transformation applied to the incident light by an optical path including the phase modulator.
Damberg teaches the forward algorithm comprises applying an inverse transform to the image data, the inverse transform inverting a transformation applied to the incident light by an optical path including the phase modulator ([0071]; [0077]; [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forward algorithm of Ward in view of Wei and Richards configured with the forward algorithm disclosed by Damberg so as to provide a forward algorithm of an inverse Fourier Transform.
As per claim 7, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards in view of Damberg discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the inverse transform comprises an inverse Fourier transform (Damberg: [0071]; [0077]; [0084]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards in view of Whitehead (US 20070268224).
As per claim 10, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, the prior art of Ward, Wei and Richards do not teach collimating the incident light before allowing the incident light to interact with the phase modulator, and controlling intensity of the incident light.
Whitehead teaches collimating the incident light before allowing the incident light to interact with the phase modulator, and controlling intensity of the incident light (Fig. 2, #20; [0045]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the collimator disclosed by Whitehead to the imagine device of Ward in view of Wei and Richards as that incident light is collimated before it interacts with the phase modulator.
As per claim 20, Ward in view of Wei in view of Richards discloses the display apparatus according to claim 15.
However, the prior art of Ward, Wei and Richards do not teach a collimator arranged to collimate the incident light ahead of the phase modulator.
Whitehead teaches a collimator arranged to collimate the incident light ahead of the phase modulator (Fig. 2, #20; [0045]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the collimator disclosed by Whitehead to the imagine device of Ward in view of Wei and Richards as that incident light is collimated before it interacts with the phase modulator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as presented above.
Applicant states on page 6 in the Remarks in regards to the 112 rejection of claim 9, “With respect to Claim 9, Applicant submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would have clearly and unambiguously understood the features recited in the claim. For example, as seen in FIG. 9 and discussed at [0142] of the specification, the iterative algorithm can use a minimization approach. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such minimization approach can use a difference between a current solution and target image specified by the image data until a completion criterion is satisfied. Thus, Claim 9 is definite”.
The Examiner does not agree. The specification on paragraph 0142 merely discloses, “FIG. 9 illustrates an iterative method to finding a solution using a minimization or optimization approach based on a forward model and its inverse. This example shows an iterative method “the optimizer” that finds a solution using a minimization or optimization approach based on a forward model and its inverse. An initial guess of the light re-distribution scheme as well as regularization terms may be utilized to converge towards a suitable solution in fewer iterations. System constraints may also be supplied. An exit metric, for example the maximum number of iterations, a residual, or a perceptual metric, determines when the program stops and outputs the current solution in form of a light re-distribution scheme”.
Therefore, it would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specification provides inadequate support for the iterative algorithm comprises iteratively minimizing a difference between a current solution and target image specified by the image data until a completion criterion is satisfied and, therefore, claim 9 is indefinite.
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 Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571 272-7776. 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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights