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 December 8, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 15, 17 and has canceled claims 2 and 16.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17 and 21-23 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) 1,3-5, 8, 13 and 15, 17, 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 issued to Molteni et al (PN. 5,449,118).
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 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.
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 to be used as the holographic recording material. Such is explicitly taught by Molteni et al, (please see column 1, lines 20-25). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to be motivated at the time of invention to use art well-known photocurable material such as photopolymer as the recording material for the benefit of using art well-known recording material.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein a refractive index matching liquid is applied between the master and the photocurable panel”, claim 15 has been amended to include the phrase “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 or only the photocurable panel is moved”.
Taniguchi et al does not teach explicitly to include a refractive index matching fluid. Molteni et al teaches to use a refractive index matching fluid interposed between the recording medium (30, Figure 2) and the master (34) to unite the master with the recording medium, (please see column 5, lines 42-46). Molteni et al also teaches the refractive index matching fluid may be applied to a transfer region which is an exposed region of the recording material or the photocurable panel when the light source and the master are moved at the same time or only the recording material. It is known in the art that the refractive index matching fluid is provided to reduce the unwanted noise of reflection of light at interface of two different refractive media.
Claim 15 has also been amended to include the phrase “a placement unit configured to support the master and the photocurable panel … and to fix one of the master or the photocurable panel while allowing the other to move relative thereto, a movement control unit configured to move other of the master or the photocurable panel”.
Taniguchi et al 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).
With regard to claim 3, Molteni et al in light of Taniguchi et al teaches that the refractive index matching fluid may be applied to a transfer region which is an exposed region of the recording material or the photocurable panel when the light source and the master are moved at the same time or only the recording material.
With regard to claim 4, Molteni et al teaches that the refractive index matching fluid may be applied by a drip system (60, column 11, lines 38-41) serves as the refractive index matching liquid applying device. It is implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the applying device be placed in moving direction of the master region and configured to apply the refractive index matching fluid or liquid wherein the refractive index matching liquid is applied when a transfer region changes for the benefit of allowing the interface between the master and the recording material or the photocurable panel be applied with the refractive index matching fluid as the transfer region change to reduce possible noise caused by unmatched refractive indices.
With regard to claim 5, Molteni et al teaches that an appropriate amount of refractive index matching fluid is gradually applied, (please see column 11, line 34). It is therefore within general level skilled in the art to determine the amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied based on the area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the recording medium or the photocurable panel in order for the applied amount be appropriate.
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 17, Molteni et al teaches that the refractive index matching fluid may be applied by a drip system (60, column 11, lines 38-41) serves as the refractive index matching liquid applying device. It is implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the applying device be placed in moving direction of the master region and configured to apply the refractive index matching fluid or liquid wherein the refractive index matching liquid is applied when a transfer region changes for the benefit of allowing the interface between the master and the recording material or the photocurable panel be applied with the refractive index matching fluid as the transfer region change to reduce possible noise caused by unmatched refractive indices. Molteni et al also teaches that an appropriate amount of refractive index matching fluid is gradually applied, (please see column 11, line 34). It is therefore within general level skilled in the art to determine the amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied based on the area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the recording medium or the photocurable panel in order for the applied amount be appropriate.
With regard to claim 21, Taniguchi et al in light of Molteni 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 is cited size, 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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al and Molteni et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Rich et al (US 2003/0124435 A1) and US patent application publication by Mohanty et al (US 2020/0018875 A1).
The method for replicating large holographic optical element taught by Taniguchi et al in light of Molteni et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, these references do not teach explicitly that the master is a panel on which a surface relief grating pattern corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern is formed by a nanoimprint lithographic process. Rich et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a master (100, Figures 6A) that may comprises surface relief pattern that may be formed by lithographic system, (please see paragraph [0037]). 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.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al and Molteni 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 Molteni 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 and Molteni 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 Molteni 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 and Molteni 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 Molteni 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 December 8, 2025, 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.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited reference Taniguchi et al teaches that the master plate and the recording material plate are arranged in parallel to one another which therefore requires the two plates to be positioned “side-by-side without physical contact” and therefore the configurations are air-gap based non-contact interference configuration that is an incorrect conclusion. Specifically, that the cited Taniguchi et al does NOT teaches specifically that there should be an air gap between the master plate and recording plate. In fact, Taniguchi et al teaches that air flow may cause fluctuation and environment condition to be unstable, this requires to provide configuration that reduce the air gap present. Furthermore, the cited Molteni et al also teaches that the master plate (34, Figure 3) and the recording material plate (30) are arranged “in parallel” to each other, yet it does not implicitly require they are arranged in air gap based non-contacting interference configuration. On the contrary, Molteni specifically teaches to include a refractive index matching fluid or liquid is applied between the master plate and the recording plate to unite them to reduce unwanted reflection light at interface of these two plates. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive to overcome the rejections.
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