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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 14, 2025, has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed October 14, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 12 and has canceled claims 8 and 9.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-15, and 18-20 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) 1-4, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Kawano et al (PN. 7,236,277) in view of the US patent application publication by Mizushima et al (US 2007/0243474 A1), the US Statutory Invention Registration by Lanteigne (H841) and Applicant admitted prior art.
Claim 1 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Kawano et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a method for measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram wherein the method that is comprised of a step of directing a reference beam (12, Figure 1) and a signal or object beam (11) toward a holographic recording medium serves as holographic material (30) for forming a diffraction grating in the holographic material, the step of blocking the object beam (with regard to amendment to claim 1), to prevent the corresponding beam to reach the holographic material for at least a portion of time during which the diffraction grating is being formed, (please see Figure 1, columns 16 and 22), and the step of measuring a power level of a diffracted beam (13) associated with the reference beam that is not blocked, by the detector or a power meter (24), upon blockage of the object beam. The detector or the power meter is positioned at a fixed position, (with regard to the amendment). Kawano et al teaches that the diffraction efficiency is the ratio of the intensity of the diffracted beam to the intensity of reference beam incidents on the holographic recording medium, (please see column 12, lines 14-17). A maximum diffraction efficiency for the hologram recording medium can be determined by the measuring method of the diffraction efficiency, (please see column 22, lines 5-18). Since the method detects a fraction of the reference beam (i.e. the unblocked beam), diffracted into diffracted beam, and is utilized to determine the diffraction efficiency, this means a real time diffraction grating efficiency is determined by the method.
Claim 1 also includes the phrase “a plurality of diffraction gratings in the holographic material of multiplexed holograms”, “the reference beam that is not blocked for each of the multiplexed holograms” and “determining … diffraction efficiency of each multiplexed holograms”.
Mizushima et al in the same field of endeavor teaches holographic recording medium may be recorded with multiplexed a plurality of holograms. As shown in Figure 2, diffraction efficiency for each of the multiplexed hologram may be determined by blocking an incident beam using shutter (9) and detected the diffracted beam from each of the multiplexed hologram by a power meter, (please see paragraph [0082]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Mizushima et al to modify the method of Kawano et al for the benefit of allowing the diffraction efficiency of each of the plurality of holograms of multiplexed holograms be measured.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “determining whether or not a particular diffraction grating efficiency, lower than a maximum diffraction grating efficiency … is reached based on monitoring the measured power level and upon a determination of that a particular diffraction grating efficiency is reached stopping the formation of the diffraction grating”.
Kawano et al in light of Mizushima et al it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the method, upon determining that the particular diffraction grating efficiency is not reached, the following steps of forming the hologram may be provided. Lanteigne in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for monitoring the hologram formation wherein iteration process can be ended when the measured diffraction efficiency of the hologram reaches a predetermining level, (please see column 3, line 41 to column 4, line 3). Also, applicant admitted prior art specifically teaches that based on different applications, the diffraction efficiency for a volume hologram may be either at a maximized value or at a lower value from the maximum value, (please see paragraph [0004] of the specification of instant application).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lanteigne and applicant admitted prior art to modify the hologram recording of Kawano et al to repeat the formation process until the predetermined diffraction efficiency, such as lower than maximized value, is reached, for the benefit of monitoring the formation of the hologram to have desired diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claim 2, Kawano et al teaches that the hologram recorded may be a volume hologram, (please see column 11, lines 25-30).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Kawano et al teaches that a shutter (26, Figure 1) may be used to block the object beam. It however does not teach explicitly that a chopper and/or a shutter may be used to periodically blocks the path of the object beams.
Lanteigne in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for detecting diffraction efficiency of recorded hologram wherein the blocking of the beam may be achieved by using either an electro-optic shutter or a rotating beam chopper, (please see column 2, lines 27-30). As shown in Figure 2, a periodical blocking of the beam path of may be achieved by the shutter or chopper. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lanteigne to modify the method of Kawano et al to allow periodically blocking of the beam to detect the diffraction efficiency of the recorded hologram in a periodically manner.
With regard to claim 7, Kawano et al in light of Mizushima et al and Lanteigne it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the method, upon determining that the particular diffraction grating efficiency is not reached, the following steps of allowing both the reference beam and the object beam to illuminate the holographic material to continue formation of the diffraction grating, subsequently to illumination of the holographic material by both reference beam and object beam for a duration of time, blocking one of the reference or the object beams, making one or more additional power level measurement associated with the reference or the object beam that is not being blocked and making another determination as to whether the predetermined diffraction grating efficiency is reached. These steps may be repeated until the predetermined diffraction grating efficiency is not reached.
With regard to claim 10, Lanteigne teaches that the blocking of the object beam is conduced according to predetermined duty cycle, (please see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 11, the predetermined duty cycle is selected to reduce adverse effects on the formation of the diffraction grating due to an exposure thereof to one of the reference or the object beam, (please see Figure 2).
Claim(s) 12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Kawano et al (PN. 7,236,277) in view of the US patent application publication by Mizushima et al (US 2007/0243474 A1) the US Statutory Invention Registration by Lanteigne (H841) and Applicant admitted prior art.
Claim 12 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Kawano et al teaches, with regard to claim 12, a hologram monitoring system for a real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of hologram that is comprised of a mirror (22, Figure 1) serves as the first optical component positioned to receive a reference beam (12) and directed the reference beam towards a location of holographic material or hologram recording medium (30) for formation of a diffraction grating thereon, serves as object beam (14) and the object beam is being directed towards a location of the holographic material (30) for formation of the diffraction grating thereon, a shutter (26, please see column 16) to block a path of the object beam to prevent the corresponding beam to reach the holographic material for at least a portion of time during which the diffraction grating being formed and a detector or power meter (24) positioned to receive a diffracted beam associated with the reference beam is not being blocked and to generate electrical signals indicative of one or more power level associated with the object beam that is incident on the detector, wherein the information indicative of one or more power levels enables a determination of the diffraction efficiency, (please see columns 16 and 22). Kawano et al teaches a maximum diffraction efficiency for a hologram recording medium is determined by the measuring method of the diffraction efficiency, (please see column 22, lines 5-18). This means method step of determining whether a particular diffraction efficiency is reached based on the measured power level is implicitly included.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claim. It however does not teach explicitly that a second optical component positioned to receive the object or signal beam. Mizushima et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for measuring diffraction efficiency wherein a mirror (10, Figure 2) serves as the second optical component may be provided to receive the object beam and to direct the object beam towards a location of the holographic material for formation of the diffraction grating. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mizushima et al to also include a mirror to direct the object beam to desired location of the holographic recording medium.
Claim 12 also includes the phrases “multiplexed holograms” and “a plurality of diffraction gratings”.
Mizushima et al in the same field of endeavor teaches holographic recording medium may be recorded with multiplexed a plurality of holograms. As shown in Figure 2, diffraction efficiency for each of the multiplexed hologram may be determined by blocking an incident beam using shutter (9) and detected the diffracted beam from each of the multiplexed hologram by a power meter, (please see paragraph [0082]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Mizushima et al to modify the method of Kawano et al for the benefit of allowing the diffraction efficiency of each of the plurality of holograms of multiplexed holograms be measured.
Claim 12 has amended to include the phrase “based on monitoring the one or more power levels enables a determination as to whether or not a particular diffraction grating efficiency lower than a maximum diffraction grating efficiency is reached”.
Kawano et al in light of Mizushima et al it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the method, upon determining that the particular diffraction grating efficiency is not reached, the following steps of forming the hologram may be provided. Lanteigne in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for monitoring the hologram formation wherein iteration process can be ended when the measured diffraction efficiency of the hologram reaches a predetermining level, (please see column 3, line 41 to column 4, line 3). Also, applicant admitted prior art specifically teaches that based on different applications, the diffraction efficiency for a volume hologram may be either at a maximized value or at a lower value than the maximum value, (please see paragraph [0004] of the specification of instant application).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lanteigne and applicant admitted prior art to modify the hologram recording of Kawano et al to repeat the formation process until the predetermined diffraction efficiency, such as lower than maximized value, is reached, for the benefit of monitoring the formation of the hologram to have desired diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claims 13-14, these references do not teach explicitly to include a processor and memory with instruction stored.
Lanteigne in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for measuring diffraction efficiency of recorded hologram wherein the system comprises a data acquisition (36) that may include a computer, (please see column 2, lines 43-46) which implicitly comprises processor and memory, including instructions stored thereon wherein the instructions upon execution by processor cause processor to receive the information indicative of the one or more power levels. In light of Kawano et al this processor is to determine whether the particular diffraction efficiency is reached based on the one or more power levels, (please see column 2, lines 41-50). The instruction upon execution by the processor cause the processor upon a determination that the particular diffraction grating efficiency is reached provide an indication for stopping the formation of the diffraction grating.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lanteigne to modify the system for measuring the diffraction efficiency of the recorded holograms for the benefit of providing data acquisition means including processor and memory with execution instruction stored to instruct the measuring process steps.
With regard to claim 15, Lanteigne further teaches to include a shutter control (28) that may include a computer, (please see column 2, lines 44-46) which implicitly comprises processor and memory, including instructions stored thereon wherein the instructions upon execution by processor cause the processor to control a duty cycle of the operation of the chopper or the shutter.
With regard to claim 18, Kawano et al teaches the system is comprised of a laser light source (20, Figure 1) that is configured to generate the reference and the object or signal beams.
With regard to claim 19, Kawano et al in light of Mizushima et al teaches that the first component (20, Figure 1 of Kawano et al) and the second component (10, Figure 2 of Mizushima et al) each comprises a mirror.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al, Mizushima et al, Lanteigne and applicant admitted prior art as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Schuck et al (US 2003/0156307 A1).
The system for real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram taught by Kawano et al in combination with the teachings of Mizushima et al as described in claim 12 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 20, these references do not teach explicitly that a prism is positioned between the location of the holographic material and the detector. Schuck et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic system wherein a prism (120, Figure 1) is positioned between a holographic storage medium (116) and a detector array (122) for folding the optical path, (please see paragraph [0030]). It would then have been obvious to appl the teachings of Schuck et al to position a prism between the holographic material and the photo-detector for the benefit of properly directing the diffracted beam toward the photo-detector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 14, 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.
The applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection 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