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 amendment filed on November 13, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3 and 5 and cancel claims 6-20.
Claims 1-5 remain pending in this application.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Xiong et al (US 2024/0302793 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Horimai et al (US 2011/0134497 A1) and US patent application publication by Lu et al (US 2021/0033770 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Xiong et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a system and method for duplicating a hologram hat is comprised of an incident light beam (110, Figure 1) that implicitly includes a light outputting element configured to output the incident light beam serves as the first beam propagating toward a beam interference zone within a photoalignment layer (131) and a wavefront shaping assembly comprises a film master (121) that may include a reflective polarization grating, (please see paragraph [0042]). The wavefront shaping assembly is disposed at a second side of the beam interference zone (131) and configured to reflect the first beam transmitted through the beam interference zone as a second beam (111) propagating toward the beam interference zone from the second side. Xiong et al teaches that the first light beam (110) and the second light beam (111) are configured to interfere with one another within the beam interference zone to generate an interference pattern that is recordable in a recording medium layer (131) disposed in the beam interference zone, (please see Figure 1 and paragraph [0042]). Xiong et al teaches that the duplicating system is to duplicate a hologram from the film master including the reflective polarization grating, this means the reflective polarization grating is a polarization hologram.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Xiong et al teaches that the first light beam and the second light beam each is a circularly polarized beams, (please see paragraph [0042]). It however does not teach explicitly that they are linearly polarized beams. Horimai in the same field of endeavor teaches a hologram generating device wherein the interfering light beams (121a and 122d, Figures 1(A) to 1(C)), that each of a linearly polarized light. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Horimai et al to modify the hologram duplicating system alternatively use linearly polarized light beams for duplicating a hologram for the benefit of expanding the duplicating system to utilize linearly polarized light beams.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the polarization hologram is formed of liquid crystal material and generated intensity interference patterns of multiple and different types to be disposed in the recording layer of the beam interference zone”.
Xiong et al teaches that the two interfering beams (110 and 111) may have the same polarization (i.e. same handiness of the circular polarization state), and the two interfering beams (121b and 122d, Figure 1(c)) of Horimai et al also have the same polarization state, which as evident by the teachings of Lu et al, the interfering beams with the same polarization state will create intensity pattern in the recording medium, (please see Figures 1A, 1B, paragraphs [0039] and [0048] of Xiong et al and Figure 1(c )). This means the interference pattern created by the interfering beams (110 and 111 and/or 121b and 122b) is indeed an intensity pattern.
Lu et al further teaches that the polarization volume grating may be recorded in liquid crystal material (please see paragraph [0004]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lu et al to alternatively use art well known recording material to record the polarization hologram.
With regard to claim 2, it is implicitly true that the polarization hologram grating of Xiong et al is configured with a predetermined phase profile and the second beam (111, Figure 1) is configured with predetermined wavefront that is associated with the predetermined phase profile.
With regard to claim 3, Xiong et al teaches that the reflective polarization grating is a reflective polarization hologram. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the reflective polarization hologram is a volume hologram (i.e. a “PVH”) element, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since PVH is a well-known polarization hologram.
With regard to claim 4, Horimai et al teaches that the wavefront shaping assembly further includes a polarization conversion means that may be a quarter wavelength plate (105, please see paragraph [0050]), that is disposed between the polarization means or a polarization hologram (in light of the Xiong et al) and the beam interference zone (112, Figure 1(A)-1(C) of Horimai et al or 131, Figure 1 of Xiong et al). The quarter wavelength plate (105) is configured to convert the first beam (121b, Figure 1(A) to 1(C) of Horimai et al or 110, Figure 1 of Xiong et al) received from the light outputting element into a first polarized beam having a predetermined handiness toward the polarization hologram, the polarization hologram (121, Figure 1 of Xiong et al) is configured to reflect the first polarized beam back to the quarter wavelength plate as a second polarized beam (111, Figure 1 of Xiong et al or 122c of Figure 1(C) of Horimai et al) having the predetermined handiness and the quarter wavelength plate (105) is configured to convert the second polarized beam received from the polarization hologram into the second beam (122d, Figure 1(C) of Horimai et al) propagating toward the beam interference zone from the second side, (please see Figure 1 of Xiong et al and Figures 1(A) to 1(C)).
With regard to claim 5, both Xiong et al and Horimai et al teaches that the first light beam and the second light beam have the same polarization direction such that the interference pattern is an intensity interference pattern, (please see please see Figure 1, paragraph [0039] of Xiong et al and Figure 1(C) of Horimai et al).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they 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.
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 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