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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 1, 2025, has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on November 3, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 12.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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 1-10 and 12-20 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. Claims 1, 10 and 12 have been amended to include the phrase “dynamically control phase distribution associated with a phase delay of the incident collimated beam dependent on an angle of the rotating mirror while reflecting the beam” that is not fully and explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 and their respective dependent claims are therefore not supported by the specification of originally filed.
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, 2, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent issued to Cuche et al (PN. 6,262,818) in view of the patent issued to Matsuda et al (PN. 4,208,637), the US patent issued to Caufield (PN. 4,498,740) and US patent application publication by Zhang et al (US 2018/0181064 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Cuche et al teaches a holographic system, (please see Figures 2C and 2D) that serves as the holographic printer is comprised of a first optical engine to emit a first beam, such as an object beam, and a second optical engine includes a tilted mirror configured to adjust a phase of the incident beam and emit a second beam, such as a reference beam. Cuche et al teaches that the first optical engine comprise a mirror that configured to reflect the incident light beam passing through an aperture (please see indication in Figure 2D below) placed after the beam expander with the mirror positioned downstream of the aperture aligned with an optical axis. The second optical engine comprises a tilted mirror that may serve as the rotating mirror configured to reflect the incident beam passing through an aperture while adjusting the phase distribution associated with a phase delay of the incident light beam dependent on an angle of the rotating mirror while reflecting the beam. The rotating mirror being positioned downstream of the aperture with an optical axis, (please see the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference does not teach explicitly that the incident beam is a collimated beam.
Matsuda et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic system that is comprised of a first and second optical engines for emitting the incident beam wherein the incident beam is generated from a beam expander (16, Figure 4) that the beam expanded forms a parallel light which is known as collimated light beam, (please see column 4, lines 10-11). In Light of the teachings of Matsuda et al, the incident beams from the beam expanders of Cuche et al (please see Figure 2D) implicitly would be also parallel beams or collimated beams.
Cuche et al also does not teach explicitly that the mirror in the first optical engine system is a rotating mirror. Mutsuda et al teaches rotating mirrors (15 and 15’, Figure 4) may be provided in both the first optical engine system for the object beam and the second optical engine system for the reference beam. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Matsuda et al to modify the mirrors of Cuche et al to make each of them a rotating mirror for the benefit of allowing specifically and dynamically adjusting and controlling the phases distribution associated with a phase delay of the incident collimated beams dependent on an angle of the rotating mirror while reflecting the object beam and the reference beam respectively.
Cuche et al further does not teach explicitly to include a first reduction optical system and a second reduction optical system. Matsuda et al teaches that the holographic printer further comprises a first telescopic lens system (19 and 21) to direct the beam from the first optical engine to enter a photosensitive resin serves as the holographic material (14) and a second telescopic lens system (19’ and 21’) to direct the beam from the second optical engine to enter the holographic material.
Matsuda et al does not teach explicitly that the telescopic lens systems (19 and 21 and/or 19’ and 21’) is a reduction optical system to reduce the beam size of the beam. However, it is known in the art to telescopic lens system has the property of reducing or expanding beam size as is explicitly by the beam expander (16, Figure 4). Furthermore, as demonstrated by Caulfield, in a holographic writer (please see Figure 8) including telescopic lens systems (including focusing lenses 16 and 19 with an aperture at the focal point, or focusing lenses 29 and 31 with an aperture at the focal point) wherein the beam size could be expanded when the incident light is incident from the lens (16 or 29) or the beam size could be reduced when the incident light is incident from the lens (19 or 31, please see column 2, lines 48-51 or column 3, lines 5-10). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the telescopic lens systems of Matsuda et al to reduce the beam size (with regard to the amendment of claim 1) as desired to make the beams enter the holographic material with desired beam size.
These references also do not teach explicitly that the focus lens is a tunable focus lens. Zhang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a device and method for recording a hologram wherein an electro-optical element (180, Figure 2) wherein the focal length of the element may be regulated or tuned by electrical means, (please see paragraph [0038]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zhang et al to modify the focusing lens to use an electro-optic element for the benefit of allowing the focal length of the focusing lens be regulated or tuned to provide desired focal length.
With regard to amended claim 2, Cuche et al teaches each of the optical engine comprises the aperture, (please see Figure 2D as demonstrated above) configured to limit a width of the incident collimated beam to a defined width and to transmit the collimated beam toward the mirror and the defined width may be selected to equal to an effective width of the tunable focus lens. Caulfield also teaches that a controlled iris (20, Figure 1) may be used as the aperture to limit the width of the incident collimated beam to a define width and transmit the collimated beam toward the rotating mirror (24, Figure 1). It is within general level skill in the art to make the define width to equal to an effective width of the tunable focus lens as desired.
With regard to claim 5, Matsuda et al teaches that the holographic printer further comprises a half mirror (12, Figure 4) serves as the beam splitter to split a collimated beam generated from a light source into the first optical engine and the second optical engine.
With regard to claim 6, Matsuda et al teaches that the first collimated beam split at the beam splitter directly enters the first optical engine (15 and 18, Figure 4). Zhang et al teaches an alternative arrangement wherein a second collimated beam split at a beam splitter (120, Figure 2) may be reflected through at least one mirror (130 or 150) and enters a second optical engine. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zhang et al to make the holographic printer has alternative arrangement as desired.
With regard to claim 7, Zhang et al teaches that the tunable lens is an electro-optic lens which is therefore an electrical tunable lens, (please see the abstract and the paragraph [0038]).
With regard to claim 8, Matsuda et al teaches that the rotation angle of the rotating mirror may be adjusted according to information of each hogel to be recorded on the holographic material. Zhang et al teaches that the focal length of the electro-optic lens may be regulated and adjusted which implicitly in accordance with information of each hogel to be recorded on the holographic material.
With regard to claim 9, Matsuda et al in light of Caulfield and Zhang et al teaches that each hogel is being recorded on the holographic material constitutes a holographic optical element (HOE).
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent issued to Cuche et al (PN. 6,262,818) in view of the patent issued to Matsuda et al (PN. 4,208,637), the US patent issued to Caufield (PN. 4,498,740) and US patent application publication by Zhang et al (US 2018/0181064 A1).
Claim 10 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Cuche et al teaches a holographic system that serves as the holographic printer that implicitly includes a holographic printing method, with regard to claims 10 and 12, wherein the method is comprised of the step of providing a first optical engine to emit a first beam, such as an object beam, and step of providing a second optical engine includes a tilted mirror configured to adjust a phase of the incident beam and emit a second beam, such as a reference beam. Cuche et al teaches that the first optical engine comprise a mirror that configured to reflect the incident light beam passing through an aperture (please see indication in Figure 2D below) placed after the beam expander with the mirror positioned downstream of the aperture aligned with an optical axis. The second optical engine comprises a tilted mirror that may serve as the rotating mirror configured to reflect the incident beam passing through an aperture while adjusting the phase distribution associated with a phase delay of the incident light beam dependent on an angle of the rotating mirror while reflecting the beam. The rotating mirror being positioned downstream of the aperture with an optical axis, (please see the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference does not teach explicitly that the incident beam is a collimated beam. With regard to claim 12, this reference does not teach explicitly that the step of “generating by a light source a collimated beam”.
Matsuda et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic system that is comprised of a first and second optical engines for emitting the incident beam wherein the incident beam is generated from a beam expander (16, Figure 4) that the beam expanded forms a parallel light which is known as collimated light beam, (please see column 4, lines 10-11). This implicitly include the step of “generating a collimated light beam by a light source”, with regard to claim 12. In Light of the teachings of Matsuda et al, the incident beams from the beam expanders of Cuche et al (please see Figure 2D) implicitly would also be parallel beams or collimated beams.
Cuche et al also does not teach explicitly that the mirror in the first optical engine system is a rotating mirror. Mutsuda et al teaches rotating mirrors (15 and 15’, Figure 4) may be provided in both the first optical engine system for the object beam and the second optical engine system for the reference beam. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Matsuda et al to modify the mirrors of Cuche et al to make each of them a rotating mirror for the benefit of allowing specifically and dynamically adjusting and controlling the phases distribution associated with a phase delay of the incident collimated beams dependent on an angle of the rotating mirror while reflecting the object beam and the reference beam respectively. This allows holographic printing method to further includes step of adjusting the phases of the object beam and reference beam.
Cuche et al further does not teach explicitly to include steps of reducing the beam emitted from the optical engines by a first reduction optical system and a second reduction optical system. Matsuda et al teaches that the holographic printer further comprises a first telescopic lens system (19 and 21) to direct the beam from the first optical engine to enter a photosensitive resin serves as the holographic material (14) and a second telescopic lens system (19’ and 21’) to direct the beam from the second optical engine to enter the holographic material.
Matsuda et al does not teach explicitly that the telescopic lens systems (19 and 21 and/or 19’ and 21’) is a reduction optical system to reduce the beam size of the beam. However, it is known in the art to telescopic lens system has the property of reducing or expanding beam size as is explicitly by the beam expander (16, Figure 4). Furthermore, as demonstrated by Caulfield, in a holographic writer (please see Figure 8) including telescopic lens systems (including focusing lenses 16 and 19 with an aperture at the focal point, or focusing lenses 29 and 31 with an aperture at the focal point) wherein the beam size could be expanded when the incident light is incident from the lens (16 or 29) or the beam size could be reduced when the incident light is incident from the lens (19 or 31, please see column 2, lines 48-51 or column 3, lines 5-10). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the telescopic lens systems of Matsuda et al to reduce the beam size (with regard to the amendment of claim 1) as desired to make the beams enter the holographic material with desired beam size.
These references also do not teach explicitly that the focus lens is a tunable focus lens. Zhang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a device and method for recording a hologram wherein an electro-optical element (180, Figure 2) wherein the focal length of the element may be regulated or tuned by electrical means, (please see paragraph [0038]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zhang et al to modify the focusing lens to use an electro-optic element for the benefit of allowing the focal length of the focusing lens be regulated or tuned to provide desired focal length.
With regard to amended claim 13, Cuche et al teaches each of the optical engine comprises the aperture, (please see Figure 2D as demonstrated above) configured to limit a width of the incident collimated beam to a defined width and to transmit the collimated beam toward the mirror and the defined width may be selected to equal to an effective width of the tunable focus lens. Caulfield teaches that a controlled iris (20, Figure 1) may be used as the aperture to limit the width of the incident collimated beam to a define width and transmit the collimated beam toward the rotating mirror (24, Figure 1). It is within general level skill in the art to make the define width to equal to an effective width of the tunable focus lens as desired.
With regard to claim 16, Matsuda et al teaches that the holographic printer further comprises a half mirror (12, Figure 4) serves as the beam splitter to split a collimated beam generated from a light source into the first optical engine and the second optical engine.
With regard to claim 17, Matsuda et al teaches that the first collimated beam split at the beam splitter directly enters the first optical engine (15 and 18, Figure 4). Zhang et al teaches an alternative arrangement wherein a second collimated beam split at a beam splitter (120, Figure 2) may be reflected through at least one mirror (130 or 150) and enters a second optical engine. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zhang et al to make the holographic printer has alternative arrangement as desired.
With regard to claim 18, Zhang et al teaches that the tunable lens is an electro-optic lens which is therefore an electrical tunable lens, (please see the abstract and the paragraph [0038]).
With regard to claim 19, Matsuda et al teaches that the rotation angle of the rotating mirror may be adjusted according to information of each hogel to be recorded on the holographic material. Zhang et al teaches that the focal length of the electro-optic lens may be regulated and adjusted which implicitly in accordance with information of each hogel to be recorded on the holographic material.
With regard to claim 20, Matsuda et al in light of Caulfield and Zhang et al teaches that each hogel is being recorded on the holographic material constitutes a holographic optical element (HOE).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: of the prior art references considered none has disclosed a holographic printer and a holographic printing method that is comprised of a first optical engine configured to adjust a phase of an incident collimated beam and emit the collimated beam; a first reduction optical system configured to reduce a size of the beam emitted from the first optical engine and to allow the beam to enter a holographic material; a second optical engine configured to adjust a phase of an incident collimated beam and emit the collimated beam; and a second reduction optical system configured to reduce a size of the beam emitted from the second optical engine and to allow the beam to enter the holographic material, wherein each of the first optical engine and the second optical engine comprises: a rotating mirror configured to reflect the incident collimated beam passing through an aperture, while adjusting the phase of the incident collimated beam through rotation of the rotating mirror, the rotating mirror being positioned downstream of the aperture aligned with an optical axis; and a tunable focus lens configured to refract and adjust the phase of the incident collimated beam reflected from the rotating mirror through focus tuning of the tunable focus lens, each of the first optical engine and the second optical engine further comprises the aperture configured to limit the width of the incident collimated beam to a defined width that is equal to an effective width of the tunable focus lens, wherein each of the first optical engine and the second optical engine further comprises a beam splitter configured to reflect the collimated beam passing through the aperture and transmit the collimated beam to the rotating mirror, and to pass the collimated beam reflected from the rotating mirror toward the tunable focus lens, and each of the first optical engine and the second optical engine further comprises an optical system configured to transmit the collimated beam passing through the beam splitter to the tunable focus lens, as explicitly set forth in claims 1-4 or 10, 13-15.
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