DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 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 20060125753).
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 ([0049]; [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 ([0082]; [0084]-[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 Mei so as to provide the ability to selectively alter the phase of the light from the light source (Mei: [0086]).
However, the prior art of Ward and Mei do not explicitly teach the interaction of the incident light with the phase modulator causes light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to be redistributed to lighter areas of the images.
Richards teaches the interaction of the incident light with the phase modulator causes light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to be redistributed to lighter areas of the images ([0008]).
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 in view of Mei configured according to Richards so as to produce a bright pixel in the projected image, the state of the SLM pixel may be set such that the light from that pixel is directed into the projection lens. To produce a dark pixel in the projected image, the state of the SLM pixel is set such that the light is directed away from the projection lens (Richards: [0008]).
As per claims 2 and 16, Ward in view of Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 11, Ward in view of Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 ([0049]; [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 ([0082]; [0084]-[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 Mei 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 Mei do not explicitly teach the phase modulator is controlled by the control circuit to cause light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to be redistributed to lighter areas of the images.
Richards teaches the phase modulator is controlled by the control circuit to cause light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to be redistributed to lighter areas of the images ([0008]; where a control circuit is inherently present).
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 in view of Mei configured according to Richards so as to produce a bright pixel in the projected image, the state of the SLM pixel may be set such that the light from that pixel is directed into the projection lens. To produce a dark pixel in the projected image, the state of the SLM pixel is set such that the light is directed away from the projection lens (Richards: [0008]).
As per claim 17, Ward in view of Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei in view of Richards in view of Damberg (US 20140043352).
As per claim 6, Ward in view of Mei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 5.
However, the prior art of Ward, Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei 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 Mei in view of Richards in view of Whitehead (US 20070268224).
As per claim 10, Ward in view of Mei in view of Richards discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, the prior art of Ward, Mei 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 imaging device of Ward in view of Mei and Richards as that incident light is collimated before it interacts with the phase modulator.
As per claim 20, Ward in view of Mei in view of Richards discloses the display apparatus according to claim 15.
However, the prior art of Ward, Mei 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 imaging device of Ward in view of Mei and Richards as that incident light is collimated before it interacts with the phase modulator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 in the Remarks, “Ward also fails to disclose or suggest that the interaction with the phase modulator 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, wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane, as recited in Claim 1”.
The Examiner, respectfully, does not agree. Ward discloses the phase modulator 14 includes controlling the phase modulator 14 to provide a combined freeform lens comprising a first phase pattern (i.e., a first phase pattern of setting each element 16 to be ON or OFF in a pattern suitable for reproducing the image of image data 43) computed from the image data 43, as disclosed by Ward on paragraph 0080, “In blocks 44 to 50, method 40 derives driving signals for the elements 16 of first spatial light modulator 14. The driving signals can be applied to set each element 16 to be ON or OFF in a pattern suitable for reproducing the image of image data 43”.
Ward further discloses a second phase pattern (i.e., pattern of light incident on second light modulator 20) superimposed with the first phase pattern as disclosed by Ward on paragraph 0049, “The pattern of light incident on second light modulator 20 can be estimated or determined from the configuration of first modulator 14 (i.e. from which elements 16 are ON and which elements 16 are OFF) and the transfer function”.
Ward further discloses wherein the second phase pattern (i.e., pattern of the proportion of the incident light 25 that should be allowed to pass each element 22 of second light modulator 20 to yield a desired image) corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane, where Ward discloses on paragraph 0102, “Block 48 predicts the amount of light 25 that will be incident on each element 22 of second light modulator 20 if the elements of first modulator 14 are set according to the pattern determined in block 46. This prediction may be made, for example, by applying a mathematical function which approximates the transfer function of transfer optics 26 to the pattern of light that would be produced at first spatial light modulator 14 by setting elements 16 according to the pattern determined in block 46”.
Ward further discloses on paragraph 0104, “Block 50 determines the proportion of the incident light 25 that should be allowed to pass each element 22 of second light modulator 20 to yield a desired image. Block 50 may comprise, for example, dividing a brightness value specified by image data 43 for an element 22 by the brightness of the light 25 at that element 22 as estimated in block 48 to yield a value indicating how much the element 22 should attenuate the incident light 25. The resulting set of values may be termed a `correction mask` because it corrects the blurry light field incident on second spatial light modulator 25 to yield the desired image. Block 50 may optionally comprise subjecting the correction mask to a sharpening operation”.
In summary, Ward provides a varying pattern of a `correction mask` representative of a lens that focuses the incident light that corrects the blurry light field incident on second spatial light modulator to yield the desired image.
Therefore, Ward discloses the limitation of “wherein the interaction with the phase modulator 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, wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15.
Applicant states on page 9 in the Remarks, “There is nothing in Mei, however, of any indication that the interaction with the phase modulator 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, wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane, wherein the interaction of the incident light with the phase modulator causes light that would otherwise illuminate darker areas of the images to be redistributed to lighter areas of the images, as recited in Claim 1”.
The Examiner does not agree and has not applied the prior art of Mei in the manner as argued by the Applicant. As stated above, the prior art of Ward disclosed the limitation of the interaction with the phase modulator 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, wherein the second phase pattern corresponds to a path length varying pattern representing a lens that focuses the incident light at the image plane as recited in claims 1 and 15.
Mei is cited as disclosing the limitation of the phase modulator is configured to modulate at least a phase of the incident light.
Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states on page 9 in the Remarks, “In fact, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted by the teachings of Mei to have modified the teachings of Ward, at least because one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the destructive interference as taught in Mei would have cancelled out the light to make the dark pixels, which would have improperly changed the principle of operation of the reference (see, MPEP 2143.01(VI))”.
The Examiner does not agree. Ward discloses on paragraph 0035, “First spatial light modulator 14 comprises a plurality of controllable elements 16. Elements 16 can be switched between ON and OFF states by a suitable control circuit 18. When it is in its ON state, an element 16 allows incident light 13 that hits the element to pass to a corresponding area of a second spatial light modulator 20. When it is in its OFF state, the amount of light that passes from the element 16 to the corresponding area of the second spatial light modulator 20 is diminished. Ideally, when an element 16 is in its OFF state, substantially no light from the element 16 reaches the corresponding area of the second spatial light modulator 20”.
Ward discloses on paragraph 0045, “In some embodiments, second spatial light modulator 20 comprises optical reflective or transmissive elements that can be switched between ON and OFF states. In such embodiments, second spatial light modulator 20 may be controlled by a controller that sets its elements to be ON or OFF”.
Mei discloses on paragraph 0082, “In the present example, the overall distance that beam 120.1 travels is exactly equal to the overall distance that beam 120.2 travels. Therefore, when the beams 120.1, 120.2 meet again at the reflective surface 112, they constructively add to produce an output beam 120.3 with a significant amplitude (referred to as "ON") and directly in phase with the light beam 120.1. The light beam 120.3 then passes through the lens system 108 and projects a pixel onto a point P1 of the surface 110”.
Mei discloses on paragraph 0084, “In the present example, the overall distance that beam 122.1 travels is exactly half a wavelength (.lambda./4+.lambda./4) more than the overall distance that beam 122.2 travels. Therefore, when the beams 122.1, 122.2 meet again at the reflective surface 112, they interfere destructively to produce an output beam 122.3 with almost no amplitude (referred to as "OFF"). Accordingly, no pixel is projected at a point P2 identified by the output beam 122.3”.
In summary, Mei provides phase modulation with light beams that constructively add to produce an output beam with a significant amplitude referred to as "ON" and light beams that interfere destructively to produce an output beam with almost no amplitude referred to as "OFF".
Therefore, Ward’s disclosure of spatial light modulators comprising optical reflective or transmissive elements that can be switched between ON and OFF states combined with the invention of Mei would not change the principle of operation of the references of Ward and Mei.
Conclusion
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
/NITIN PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights