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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on September 28, 2023, which has been entered into the file,
By this amendment, the applicant has canceled claim 18 and has amended claim 21.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 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 10 and 11 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification fails to teach how could the distance between the laminated glazing and the mater holographic film assembly be changed with a rate while both of the two are received in the channel of the structural body, which implicitly has a fixed relative distance between the two, as shown in Figure 4.
The claims therefore are not enabling by the specification.
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 10, 11 and 17 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 “positioned in the channel has a maximum rate of change of 1.00 mm over 100 mm” recited in claim 10 and the phrase “positioned in the channel has a maximum rat of change of 0.7 mm over 100 mm” recited in claim 11 are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the rate or rat of change and how does such change is achieved.
The phrase “first i l lterlaer” recited in claim 17 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what does this phrase mean?
Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the patent issued to Moss et al (PN. 4,984,856).
Moss et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a holographic exposure system that serves as a replication tool for use in preparing a holographic film by replication, that is comprised of a peripheral mounting ring (26, Figure 1) serves as the base structure having a structure body (i.e. the mounting ring itself) and a gap serves as the channel configured to receive at least one of a laminated glazing (16 and 18) and a master hologram (6) serves as the master holographic film assembly, (please see columns 4-5).
With regard to claim 5, Moss et al teaches the structure body provides a bearing (10 or 12, Figure 1) that serves as the separator between the laminated glazing (16/18) and master holographic film (6).
With regard to claim 6, Moss et al teaches that that the peripheral mounting ring or the structure body (26, Figure 1) is configured to extend along the entire periphery of the laminated glazing, (16 and 18).
With regard to claim 8, Moss et al teaches that the channel is configured to receive both of the laminated glazing (16 and 18, Figure 1) and the master hologram (6).
With regard to claim 12, as shown in Figure 1, Moss et al teaches that the baes structure or the peripheral mounting ring may form a seal where the structure meets the laminated glazing and/or the mater holographic film assembly.
This reference has anticipated the claims.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the patent issued to Goto et al (PN. 5,504,596).
Goto et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a holographic exposure system that serves as the replication tool for use in preparing a holographic film by replication that is comprised of a holding apparatus (6, Figure 2) serves as the base structure having a structure body (i.e. the holder itself) and a channel configured to receive at least one of a laminated glazing or wafer (5) and a master holographic film assembly (1 and 2).
This reference has therefore anticipated the 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) 2-4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al.
The replication tool taught by Goto et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 2, Goto et al teaches that the holding apparatus includes the channel is configured to receive the laminated glazing (read as the recording medium or wafer 5). Goto et al teaches that the master holographic assembly (1, Figure 2) is placed near the wafer 5, but this reference does not teach explicitly that the holding apparatus has a surface contacting the master holographic assembly. However, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the holographic assembly contacting the holding apparatus for the benefit of allowing both the wafer (or laminated glazing) and the master hologram be supported with fixed relationship between them to avoid the noise in the preparing process.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, this reference does not teach explicitly that the surface of the holding apparatus has the claimed designs, however it is considered obvious to one to make the holding apparatus has desired designs for the benefit of properly holding the master hologram as well.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al.
The replication tool for preparing a hologram taught by Moss et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, this reference teaches that the structure body is a peripheral mounting ring (26, please see column 5, line 24) but does not teach explicitly that the structure is made of an elastic material. However, it is known in the art that a ring usually is made of elastic material. Furthermore, it is within general level of skilled in the art to use suitable material for making the structure or the ring which makes the modification obvious to one skilled in the art. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. These claims therefore cannot be examined further since by receiving both the laminated glazing and the master hologram in the channel of the structure, the distance between the two generally will be kept at constant.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al in view of the patent issued to John et al (PN. 3,716,286).
The replication tool for preparing a hologram taught by Moss et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, this reference does not teach explicitly to include a port for attachment to a vacuum. John et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic recording system wherein the master hologram (212, Figure 26) and hologram copy detector (281) for recording a copy of master hologram thereon, are held in a vacuum chamber with an outlet (296) serves as the port for attachment to a vacuum, (please see columns 33 and 34). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of John et al to provide a port or outlet to the recording module (2, Figure 1) of Moss et al to allow vacuum condition may be achieved for the benefit of allowing the master hologram and the laminated glazing be maintained at a very close contact, (please see column 34, lines 50-53).
With regard to claim 13, in light of the teachings by John et al, the peripheral mounting ring taught by Moss et al therefore may function as deairing ring.
Claim(s) 14-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Moss et al (PN. 4,984,856) in view of the US patent application publication by Koran et al (US 2022/0161525 A1).
Moss et al teaches, with regard to claims 14 and 19, a method for preparing the laminated glazing that is comprised of preparing a laminated glazing (16 and 18, Figure 1) with a holographic recording material (16, please see column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 11), therein an a peripheral mounting ring (26) serves as the structure on the laminated glazing, and aligning a master hologram (6) serves as the master holographic film assembly with the laminated glazing wherein the master holographic film assembly contacts the base structure (26). Moss et al teaches that the holographic recording material is treated with reactive light through the master hologram in order to replicate the hologram on the hologram recording material.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the holographic recording material also include photopolymer film. However, photopolymer film is well known holographic recording material as explicitly taught by Koran et al, (please see paragraph [0011]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Koran et al to alternatively use an art well known photopolymer as the hologram recording material. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 15, Moss et al teaches that that the peripheral mounting ring or the structure body (26, Figure 1) is configured to extend along the entire periphery of the laminated glazing, (16 and 18).
With regard to claim 16, Moss et al in light of Koran et al teaches that the laminated glazing with the photopolymer film formed therein and attaching the base structure or the peripheral mounting ring (26) around the laminated glazing, (please see Figure 2 of Moss et al).
With regard to claim 17, Koran et al further teaches that the laminated glazing or the hologram recording material may comprise a stack of a first glass sheet (18, Figure 1), a first interlayer (14), a photopolymer layer (12), a second interlayer (14), and a second glass sheet (18, please see paragraph [0037]). In light of Moss et al the base structure or the peripheral mounting ring (26 of Moss et al) may be attached around the stack. Koran et al further teaches that deairing process and autoclaving process may be applied to the stack, (please see paragraph [0107]).
With regard to claim 21, Moss et al teaches that index matching fluid (20/24, Figure 1) may be provided between the laminated glazing or the holographic recording material (16) and the master hologram (6, please see column 5, lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al and Koran et al as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of the patent issued to John et al (PN. 3,716,286).
The replication tool for preparing a hologram taught by Moss et al in combination with the teachings of Koran et al as described in claim 19 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 20, these references do not teach explicitly to deair a space between the laminated glazing and the master hologram assembly. John et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic recording system wherein the master hologram (212, Figure 26) and hologram copy detector (281) for recording a copy of master hologram thereon, are held in a vacuum chamber with an outlet (296) so that vacuum may be applied, (please see column 34, lines 35-40). This means the space between the master hologram and the hologram recording/ laminated glazing may be deaired. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of John et al to provide a port or outlet to the recording module (2, Figure 1) of Moss et al to allow deairing condition be achieved in the space between the master hologram and the laminated glazing for the benefit of allowing the two to have a very close contact, (please see column 34, lines 50-53).
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