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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 22, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 15 and has canceled claims 3-7 and 17.
Claims 1, 8-15, and 21-23 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 1,8-14, 15 and 21-23 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 1 has been amened to include the phrase “an amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied being determined based on an area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the photosensitive panel” and claim 15 has been amended to include the phrase “the apparatus is configured such that an amount of refractive index matching liquid applied is determined based on an area of the transfer region, a moving speed of the light source and the master or a moving speed of the photocurable panel”. The specification fails to provide how exactly can the amount of refractive index matching liquid applied be determined based on the area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the light source and the master or a moving speed of the photocurable panel since the specification fails to disclose the explicit means and/or mechanism to carry out the claimed determination.
Claims 8-14 and 21-23 inherit the rejection from their respective 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, 8, 13 and 15, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Taniguchi et al (PN. 5,225,918) in view of the US patent application publication by Rich et al (US 2003/0124435 A1), the US patent application publication by Mohanty et al (US 2020/0018875 A1) and US patent issued to Ueda et al (PN. 5,843,598).
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Taniguchi et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 15, a method and apparatus for making hologram element that serves as the method and apparatus for replicating a large holographic optical element, wherein the method comprises a master (18, please see Figure 8) which is composed of a diffractive optical element having a diffraction grating pattern, (please see column 4, lines 12-20) to be transferred as a holographic grating pattern to a holographic optical element, and a recording material (60, Figure 8) which has a larger area than that of the master and to which the holographic grating pattern formed by the diffraction grating pattern is to be transferred, a step of the forming the holographic grating pattern on the recording material by allowing a reference beam emitted from a light source to be incident on the master (18) and a step of forming the holographic grating pattern on the recording material over a larger area than that of the master while moving the light source and the master at the same time, (please see Figure 8). Taniguchi et al teaches that in a different embodiment, the step of forming the holographic grating pattern on the recording material over a larger area that that of the master while moving only the recording material (35, Figure 3) during the incidence of the reference beam.
With regard to claim 15, Taniguchi et al teaches that the apparatus for duplicating a large holographic optical element wherein the apparatus is comprised of a light source unit (please see Figure 8) comprises a light source configured to irradiate with a reference beam, a master (18) which is composed of a diffractive optical element having a diffractive grating pattern (column 4, lines 12-20) to be transferred as a holographic grating pattern to the holographic optical element, a fixed base table (61) serves as the placement unit configured to place and fix the recording material (60), wherein the recording material has a larger area than that of the master and to which the holographic grating pattern formed by the diffraction grating pattern is to be transferred and a moving box (62, Figure 8) serves as the movement control unit configured to move the light source and master at the same time so as to form the holographic grating pattern on the recording material over the larger area than that of the master during incidence of the reference beam onto the master, (please see Figure 3). In a different embodiment, Taniguchi et al teaches that the apparatus may comprise a moving member (36, Figure 3) serves as the movement control unit configured to move only the recording material (35), that is placed by a table base, so as to form the holographic grating pattern on the recoding material over a larger area than that of the master incidence beam onto the master.
Taniguchi et al also teaches that the base (61, Figure 8) may support both the master (18) and the recording material (60) and in a different embodiment Taniguchi et al teaches that a slide table (50, Figure 7) that supports the master (18) and recording material (a1). Taniguchi et al teaches either the recording material (60, Figure 8) is fixed while the master (18) is allowed to move or the master (18) is fixed while allowing the recording material (a1) to move relatively, (please see Figure 7).
This reference teaches that the master (18) is being placed by the moving box (62) while the master and the light source are moving together by the moving box and the master is being placed close to the recording material while the recording material is being moved, (please see Figure 3).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Taniguchi et al teaches that the diffraction grating of the master is being formed on the recording material that implicitly requires the recording material must be photosensitive. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that recording material is a photocurable, it is known in the art to use art well-known photocurable material such as photopolymer as the holographic recording material. Rich et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method and apparatus for duplicating a holographic grating pattern wherein a photocurable layer (108, Figure 6A to 6C) is used for duplicating the holographic grating pattern from the master (100). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Rich et al to use photocurable material as the recording medium for the benefit of allowed the recording material with the duplicated and recorded master holographic grating pattern be UV-cured for securing the recorded pattern, (please see paragraphs [0037] to [0042}).
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “the master being a panel on which a surface-relief grating pattern corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern has been formed by a nanoimprint lithography (NIL) process”.
Rich et al teaches that the mater (100, Figure 6A) is a panel on which a surface-relief grating pattern is formed, (please see Figure 6A). Mohanty et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a surface relief structure may be formed by art well-known nanoimprint lithography (NIL) process with a master mold or stamp used to imprint the surface relief structure on a material panel and curing the material panel, (please see paragraph [0004]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Rich et al and Mohanty et al to make the master comprise surface relief pattern that is fabricated by the art well known nanoimprint lithography process for the benefit of using art well-known fabrication process to make the master.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “applying a refractive index matching liquid is applied to a transfer region which is an exposed region of the photocurable panel when the light source and the master are moved at the same time of only the photocurable panel is moved; using a refractive index matching liquid applying device placed in a moving direction of the transfer region to apply the refractive index matching liquid, the refractive index matching liquid is being applied when the transfer region changes an amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied being determined based on an area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the photocurable panel”.
Taniguchi et al does not teach explicitly to include a refractive index matching fluid. Ueda et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a hologram recording method and apparatus wherein a refractive index matching liquid (12, Figures 10(a) to 10(c)) is applied to a transfer region which is an exposed region (i.e. the region contacting the object plate 5 for recording), of the recording film (1), when the recording film is moved. Ueda et al teaches that an index matching liquid feeder (63) serves as the refractive index matching liquid applying device is placed in a moving direction of the transfer region (Figure 10(a) moving direction of the recoding film) to apply the refractive index matching liquid. The index matching liquid is applied when the transfer region changes (i.e. the movement of the recording film 1) and an amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied is based on the area of the transfer region and moving speed of the recording film. Since the instant application fails to disclose any specific means, mechanism or device for the determination of the amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied, such determination can therefore be done manually and based on the observation of the operator.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to include the phrase “fabricating the master by imprinting the surface-relief grating pattern on a material panel for the master by using a master stamp having a pattern corresponding to the surface-relief grating pattern formed on a surface thereof and curing the material panel having surface relief grating pattern imprint thereon”.
In light of the teachings of Rich and Mohanty et al the surface-relief pattern of the master may be formed by nanoimprint lithographic method, which includes the step of imprinting the surface-relief grating pattern on a material for the master by using a master stamp corresponding the surface relief grating pattern to imprint the pattern on a surface of the material, (please see paragraph [0003]). Mohanty et al further teaches that the material may be UV-curable and a step of curing the material having the surface relief grating pattern imprinted is applied, (please see paragraph [0075]).
With regard to claim 8, Taniguchi et al teaches that the master allows a reproduced beam generated by the master to travel in a single inclined direction, (please diffracted beam L1, Figure 2).
With regard to claim 13, Taniguchi et al teaches that the large holographic optical element is a transmission type holographic optical element wherein the placing of the master comprises placing the master between the light source from which the reference beam is emitted and the photocurable panel or the recording material (60, Figure 8) and wherein forming the holographic grating pattern further comprises forming the holographic grating pattern by transmitted beam which passes through the master (18) and reaches photocurable panel or the recording material (60) and diffracted beam which is diffracted by the master and reaches the photocurable panel, (please see Figure 8).
With regard to claim 21, Taniguchi et al teaches that a large holographic optical element may be replicated by the method taught, (please see the details of reasons for rejection to claim 1).
With regard to claim 22, these references do not teach explicitly that the width of each seam between any one holographic grating pattern and other holographic grating patterns adjacent to the any one holographic grating pattern to have the cited size, however such modification would have been obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of meeting the desired application requirement.
With regard to claim 23, these references do not teach explicitly that an area of seams between any one holographic grating pattern and other holographic grating patterns adjacent to the any one holographic grating pattern is cited percentage of the total are of the large holographic optical element, however such modification is considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art for the benefit of meeting the desired application requirement.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al, Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kobayashi et al (US 2006/0055993).
The method for replicating large holographic optical element taught by Taniguchi et al in light of Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 9-11, these references do not teach explicitly that the prior to placing the master to determine a size of the master based on the each of the horizontal length and vertical length of the holographic element. Kobayashi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for fabricating a large holographic optical element from a master hologram wherein the master is being duplicated multiple times on a recording material, (please see Figures 2-4). This means that the size of the master hologram (11) is predetermined such that the horizontal length is a multiple of the horizontal length of the master and the vertical length of the recording material is a multiple of the vertical length of the master, (please see Figure 2). With regard to claim 11, it is implicitly true that the number of times that move the light source and the master or the photocurable or recording material is a value by subtracting 1 from a value obtained by dividing area of the large holographic optical element by the area of the master. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kobayashi et al to predetermine the size of the master to duplicate and fabricate the large holographic optical element.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al, Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Wreede et al (PN. 5,499,118).
The method for replicating large holographic optical element taught by Taniguchi et al in light of Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, Taniguchi et al teaches that the duplicated holographic optical element is a transmission type but it does not teach explicitly that it might alternatively be a reflection type. Wreede et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for duplicating a hologram wherein a reflection type of the holographic optical element is formed, (please see Figure 1). Wreede et al teaches that in order to duplicate a reflection type holographic optical element, the recording material layer (35) is placed between the light source and the master hologram (25 or 29), wherein a reflected beam reflected by the master hologram reaches the recording medium (35) is used to copy the hologram. The reference beam reaches the recording medium (35) before reaches the master hologram (29 or 25). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wreede et al to modify the method and system of Taniguchi et al for the benefit of fabricating a reflection type holographic optical element.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al, Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Uchida et al (PN. 7,133,170).
The method for replicating large holographic optical element taught by Taniguchi et al in light of Rich et al, Mohanty et al and Ueda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 14, these references do not teach explicitly to include a bleaching step for bleaching the photocurable panel. Uchida et al in the same field of endeavor teaches holographic recording medium may be subjected to bleaching process by irradiating the recording region by a white light (i.e. visible range) in order to fix the recorded data, (please see column 1, lines 44-53). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Uchida et al to include a bleaching process for the benefit of fixing the recorded holographic data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 22, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to 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 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
Prosecution Insights