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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 22, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amened claims 1 and 19.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-21 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 19 has been amended to include the phrase “compensating for aberrations introduced by a second spherical mirror using the planar photosensitive material … the first spherical mirror having the same focal length as the second spherical mirror used in reply” that is not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed. Claims 20 and 21 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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) 1-5, 7-10, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Mills et al (US 2020/011638 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Mantravadi et al (PN. 5,206,499), US patent application publication by Matsumoto (US 2015/0293337 A1) and US patent application publication by Kasai (US 2004/0212860 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Mills et al teaches a holographic weapon sight that serves as the holographic optical system, that is comprised of a light source (752, Figure 7C), a collimator (754) arranged to receive light from the light source, wherein the collimator has an output surface configured to provide collimated light. The collimator is a parabolic collimator reflector (754, please see paragraph [0069]) that has an output surface that is concave surface.
Mills et al teaches that the collimator (754) may comprise parabolic mirror and a second surface of the collimator may have parabolic or non-parabolic shape which may include a circular shape, (please see paragraph [0070]). A non-parabolic shape with circular shape may comprise spherical shape.
Mantravadi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a spherical mirror with concave surface is a known collimator in the art, (please see 164, Figure 13a, and 178, Figure 14a). The spherical mirror would generate a spherical aberration in the collimated light. Mantravadi et al therefore also teaches a holographic optical element (162 or 174) associated with the spherical mirror to compensate the spherical aberration, (please see column 3, lines 12-20, and column 15, lines 22-34).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mantravadi et al to specifically make the collimator alternatively to comprise a spherical mirror with a concave surface for the benefit of utilizing an art well known collimator for the weapon sight for the benefit of making the collimator to have a more compact size.
The collimator implicitly has optical properties that would generate aberrations of the collimated light. Mills et al teaches the holographic optical system further comprises an achromatic arrangement that is comprised of a first diffractive optical element (DOE, 764) and a second diffractive optical element (DOE, 768, please see paragraphs [0071] and [0072]), that would compensate the wavelength shift or the chromatic aberration of the optical system, (please see paragraph [0060], achromatic arrangement means chromatic aberration compensated). Mills et al teaches that the diffractive optical element (DOE) may comprise holographic optical element (HOE) that is formed by holographic recording process as shown in Figures 3A and 3B, (please see paragraphs [0037] and [0038]). Mills et al further teaches that he first diffractive optical element and the second diffractive optical element each has a planar diffractive surface, (please see Figure 7C). The planar diffractive surface of the first diffractive optical element (DOE, 764) is arranged to receive the collimated light from the output surface of the collimator (754).
Mills et al however does not teach explicitly that the planar diffractive surface of the holographic optical element (HOE/DOE, 764 or 768) is to compensate the aberrations generated by the collimator, specifically with the collimator comprises a spherical mirror. Mantravadi et al teaches a corrector plate comprises a holographic optical element to correct the spherical aberration generated by a spherical mirror, (please see column 3, lines 12-17, Figure 13a). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Mantravadi et al to modify the holographic optical element (754) taught by Mills et al an aberration-compensating holographic optical element to make it also has the property of correcting the spherical aberration generated from the spherical mirror for the benefit of correcting possible spherical aberration created by the optical system including the collimator.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the planar diffractive surface has a Zernike phase function with Zernike polynomial terms including at least a coma aberration term and a spherical aberration term so that the output light from the planar diffractive surface is compensated for the aberrations generated by the collimator”.
Mantravadi et al does teach explicitly that the corrector plate comprises the holographic optical element to correct the spherical aberration of the collimator, wherein the holographic optical element implicitly has a phase modulation function. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the planar diffractive surface of the corrector plate has a Zernike phase function.
Matsumoto in the same field of endeavor teaches an aberration correction optical element that is comprised of phase modulation elements (3a and 3c, Figure 1) wherein the phase modulation element has Zernike phase function with wave front aberration resolved into the Zernike polynomials. Matsumoto teaches that the Zernike polynomial comprises spherical aberration terms and coma aberration terms, (please see paragraphs [0059] and [0060]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Matsumoto to modify the phase function of the holographic corrector plate for the benefit to address and compensate the spherical aberration and coma aberration generated by the optical element such as the collimator in the device.
Claim 1 also includes the phrase “a chromatic-compensating optical element having a diffractive surface and the planar diffractive surface of the aberration-compensating holographic optical element and the diffractive surface of the chromatic-compensating optical element are together configured to provide zero chromatic dispersion”.
Mills et al teaches that the first diffractive optical element and the second diffractive optical element (764 and 768, Figure 7C) together serves as achromatic arrangement that provide zero chromatic dispersion, (please see paragraph [0060]). This means either one or all of the first and second diffractive optical elements are chromatic compensating optical element. Kasai in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for fabricating a holographic optical element, having a diffractive surface, is capable of correcting chromatic aberration, (please see Figures 1, 3, 4 and the abstract). Kasai teaches that the light of different wavelengths are not diffused and therefore provide zero chromatic dispersion, (please see Figures 1 and 4). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Kasai to specifically make the second diffractive optical element being a chromatic compensating optical element to achieve the zero chromatic dispersion.
With regard to claim 2, Mills et al in light of Mantravadi et al teaches that the collimator may comprise a spherical mirror (please see Figure 13a of Mantravadi et al), that would generate spherical aberrations in the collimated light and wherein the planar diffractive surface of the holographic optical element (162, Figure 13a of Mantravadi et al and column 3, lines 12-17) has optical properties so that output light from the planar diffractive surface is compensated for the spherical aberrations generated by the collimator.
With regard to claim 3, Mills et al teaches that the second diffractive optical element (768) reconstructs an image of the reticle (770, please see paragraph [0072]). As shown in Figures 3A and 3B, the reticle image may be holographic recorded into the holographic optical element.
With regard to claim 4, it is implicitly true that the collimator (754) has a definite focal length and there is a definite distance between the light source (752) and the collimator, (please see Figure 7C). This reference does not teach explicitly that the distance is less than the focal length. However, one skilled in the art has the general knowledge that if the distance is equal to the focal length, the light from the light source would be collimated by the collimator. If the distance is less than the focal length then a non-collimated light would be generated. It is therefore within general level of skilled in the art to modify the distance in relating to the focal length of the collimator to generate the desired light beam from the light source to be received by the achromatic arrangement of the optical system.
With regard to claim 5, Mills et al teaches that the optical system further comprises an optical element (772, Figure 7C) serves as the optical combining element, arranged to receive the output light and to receive light from the outside the optical system and to combine the received light and to direct the combined light along an axis wherein the collimator is off-axis, (please see Figure 7C).
With regard to claim 7, Mills et al teaches that the planar diffractive surface of the aberration compensating holographic optical element (764) and the diffractive surface of the chromatic compensating optical element (768) are parallel to each other, (please see Figure 7C).
With regard to claim 8, Mills et al in light of Kasai teaches that the chromatic compensating optical element is a holographic optical element, (please see the holographic fabrication arrangement of Figures 5 and 6 of Kasai).
With regard to claim 9, Mills et al teaches that the second diffractive optical element (768) reconstructs an image of the reticle (770, please see paragraph [0072]). As shown in Figures 3A and 3B, the reticle image may be holographic recorded into the holographic optical element. In light of Kasai, the second diffractive optical element may also be a chromatic compensating optical element. Mills et al in light of Kasai teach that the second diffractive optical element which is a chromatic compensating optical element is also a reticle generating holographic optical element.
With regard to claim 10, as shown in Figure 7C, Mills et al teaches that the aberration compensating holographic optical element (764) or the first diffractive optical element and the chromatic compensating optical element or the second diffractive optical element (768) are both reflective.
With regard to claim 14, Mills et al teaches that the planar diffractive surface (of DOE 764, Figure 7C) has a normal that is tilted with respect to a normal to a center of the output surface of the collimator (754).
With regard to claim 16, Mills et al teaches that the light source may comprise an LED or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser device (VCSEL), (please see paragraph [0070]).
With regard to claim 18, Mills et al teaches that the holographic optical system is a holographic weapon sight device, (please see the abstract).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills et al, Mantravadi et al, Matsumoto and Kasai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the patent issued to Dobschal et al (PN. 7,796,329).
The holographic weapon sight taught by Mills et al in combination with the teachings of Mantravadi et al, Matsumoto and Kasai as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 11, Mills et al in light of Kasai teaches that the light from the aberration compensating holographic optical element (764) is conveyed to the chromatic compensating optical element (768). These references however do not teach explicitly the convey of the light is via a waveguide configured. Dobschal et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a sighting device that is comprised of an input diffractive structure or HOE (8, Figures 2 and 3) and an output diffractive structure or HOE (9) wherein the light is conveyed from the input diffractive structure to the output diffractive structure via a waveguide, (please see column 2, lines 45-63). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Dobschal et al to modify the holographic sighting device to use a waveguide to convey the light from the aberration compensating holographic optical element to the chromatic compensating optical element for the benefit of using a compact design for the sighting device.
With regard to claim 12, Mills et al teaches that the first diffractive optical element or the aberration compensating optical element (764, Figure 7C) is to couple the light from the collimator (754) and the second diffractive optical element or chromatic aberration compensating element (768) is to couple the light out. In light of Dobschal et al the aberrating compensating holographic optical element (8) is therefore to couple light from the collimator (11, Figure 2) into the waveguide and the chromatic compensating optical element (9) is configured to couple the light out from the waveguide.
With regard to claim 13, in a different embodiment of Dobschal et al the waveguide (6, Figure 4) may be between the collimator (11) and the aberration compensating holographic optical element (16) when the diffractive structure is of reflective grating.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills et al, Mantravadi et al, Matsumoto and Kasai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Lee (US 2014/0233095A1).
The holographic weapon sight taught by Mills et al in combination with the teachings of Mantravadi et al, Matsumoto and Kasai as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 17, Mills et al teaches that the light source may comprise an LED or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser device (VCSEL), (please see paragraph [0070]), but it does not teach explicitly to include a brightness controller configured to adjust an electrical current applied to the light source in order to control brightness of the light out. Lee in the same field of endeavor teaches the brightness of the light from light source LED or VCSEL may be controlled by an electronic control circuitry with a current driver as shown in Figure 10, The brightness of the light is adjusted by adjusting the electrical current applied to the light source, (please see paragraphs [0076] and [0077]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to include an electronic control circuitry with current driver to control the brightness of the light source.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Kasai (US 2004/02128560 A1) in view of the patent issued to Mantravadi et al (PN. 5,206,499).
Claim 19 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Kasai teaches a method for manufacturing a holographic optical element that is comprised of the steps of splitting a coherent beam of laser light (please see paragraph [0006]) into a reference beam (L2, Figure 5) and an object beam (L3), directing the reference beam to a first side of a planar photosensitive material (21, please see paragraph [0005]), directing the object beam to a collimator (24) so that an output surface of the collimator redirects the object beam to a second side of the planar photosensitive material, opposite the first side, to record a hologram on the photosensitive material, wherein the planar photosensitive material has a normal that is tilted with respect to a normal to a center of the output surface of the collimator, (please see Figure 5).
This reference however does not teach the feature “for use in a holographic reticle device”. But it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 19 has been amended to include the phrase “a collimator that is a first spherical mirror having an output surface that is concave surface”.
Kasai teaches that the collimator comprises a concave reflective surface (24, Figure 5, please see paragraph [0059]), that may include a spherical mirror. Mantravadi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a collimator that comprises a spherical mirror, (please see Figures 13a and 14a). The spherical mirror has an output surface that is a concave surface.
Claim 19 also has been amended to includes the phrase “compensating for aberration introduced by a second spherical mirror using the planar photosensitive material as an aberration-compensating holographic optical element in a holographic optical system, the first spherical mirror having the same focal length as the second spherical mirror used in replay”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons stated above.
Kasai teaches an identical method for manufacturing the holographic optical element as the instant application, it is therefore implicitly true that the holographic optical element recorded in the planar photosensitive material, taught by Kasai, would also be able to be utilized as an aberration compensating holographic optical element in the system the same way as the instant application. The aberration caused by the collimator (24, Figure 5) would be recorded in the planar photosensitive material plate (21). It is implicitly true that in replay, aberrations generated by a second collimator that has the identical shape as the first collimator (24) would be compensated by the aberration recorded in the planar photosensitive material plate (21).
Furthermore, Mantravadi et al teaches a corrector plate comprises a holographic optical element (162, Figure 13a and 174, Figure 14a) that is capable of correcting the spherical aberration generated by the spherical mirror, (please see column 3, lines 12-17). This means in light of Mantravadi et al, the aberration caused by a collimator comprises a first spherical mirror may be recorded in the planar photosensitive material plate (21 of Kasai) and in replay, aberration introduced by a second spherical mirror that is identical (i.e. may have the same focal length) to the spherical mirror collimator would be compensated by the planar photosensitive material plate.
Claim 19 also includes the phrase “providing a chromatic-compensation optical element having a diffractive surface configuring together a planar diffractive surface of the aberration-compensating holographic optical element and a diffractive surface of the chromatic-compensating optical element to provide zero chromatic dispersion”. In light of the disclosure of Mantravadi, the holographic optical element recorded and fabricated in the arrangement of Figure 2 of Kasai may be able to have both the chromatic compensation and the aberration compensation of the curved mirror (24). As shown in Figure 2 of Kasai, light of different wavelengths are not dispersed which means the diffractive surface of the holographic optical element (21) may have both chromatic compensation and aberration compensation with zero chromatic dispersion.
With regard to claim 20, Kasai teaches that the holographic optical element manufactured may correct chromatic aberration, (please see paragraph [0057] and [0059]). The chromatic aberration compensating holographic optical element may be utilized in a holographic optical system.
Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the hologram recorded in the planar photosensitive material includes a geometric aberration compensating holographic optical element. But the manufacturing method for the holographic optical element taught by Kasai does indeed include a collimator, (please see Figures 5-7) which means a geometric aberration generated by the collimator may be implicitly included and therefore is implicitly capable of correcting geometric aberration.
With regard to claim 21, it is implicitly true that the collimator in the step of directing the object beam to the photosensitive material (21) has a same focal length as a collimator in the holographic optical system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended features have been fully considered and are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 on 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