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 September 4, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 9-15 and 21 and has canceled claims 22-23.
Claims 1, 8-15, and 21 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, 8, 13 and 21 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 Armstrong et al (PN. 4,995,685).
Claim 1 has been significantly 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
placing 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) serves as the having a larger area than that of the master and configured to receive the holographic grating pattern to be formed by the diffraction grating pattern such that the master and the photocurable panel are in close contact with each other without being attached to each other, (please see the gap shown in Figure 8).
The method further comprise a step of forming the holographic grating pattern in a first region of the recording material by allowing a reference beam emitted from a light source to be incident on the master (18, Figure 8) while the master and the photocurabke panel or recording material (60) are stationary relative to each other. Taniguchi et al teaches that after formation of the holographic grating pattern in the first region is completed, relatively moving the master and the photocurable panel by moving the light source and the master together (as shown in Figure 8) or by moving only the photocurable panel (as shown in Figures 3 or 7), such that the master is positioned over a next region of the photocurable panel in which the holographic grating pattern has not been formed.
Taniguchi et al also teaches the method includes the step of after the master is positioned over the next region, stopping the relative movement and forming the holographic grating pattern in the next region by allowing the reference beam to be incident onto the master while the master and the photocurable panel are stationary relative to each other; and repeating the relative movement and the formation of the holographic grating pattern to form the holographic grating pattern on the photocurable panel over an area larger than the area of the master.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Taniguchi et al teaches that the diffraction grating of the master is 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}).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference however does not teach the amended phrases “fabricating a master by: imprinting a surface-relief grating (SRG) pattern on a material panel for the master using a master stamp having, on a surface thereof, a pattern corresponding to the surface-relief grating pattern; and curing the material panel having the surface-relief grating pattern imprinted thereon; wherein the master is a panel composed of a diffractive optical element having a diffraction grating pattern to be transferred as a holographic grating pattern to a holographic optical element, the panel having the surface-relief grating pattern corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern formed thereon by a nanoimprint lithography (NIL) process”.
Rich et al teaches that the master (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]). The fabricated master is a panel composed of a diffractive optical element having a diffraction grating pattern to be transferred as holographic pattern to a holographic optical element, the panel having the surface relief grating corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern formed thereon by the nanoimprint lithography,
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 1 has been amended to include the phrase “such that the master and the photocurable panel are in close contact with each other without being attached to each other and a refractive index matching liquid is interposed between the master and the photocurable panel”. Claim 1 has also been amended to include the phrase “during the relative movement, applying the refractive index matching liquid to a transfer region that newly occurs as the master and the photocurable panel are relatively moved, using a refractive index matching liquid applying device disposed in a moving direction of the transfer region”. Claim 1 has also been amended to include the phrase “wherein an amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied is determined such that the amount changes in proportion to an area of the transfer region and a moving speed of the photocurable pane”.
These references do not teach such explicitly. Armstrong et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for replicating a large holographic optical element, wherein a refractive index liquid (37, Figure 4) is interposed between the master (2) and the recording medium (6). Armstrong et al teaches that the during relative movement of the recording medium, the refractive index matching liquid is applied to a transfer region that newly occurs as the master and the recording medium are relatively moved. Armstong et al teaches that the refractive index matching liquid applying device (36, Figure 4) is disposed in a moving direction of the transfer region. The amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied is determined such that the amount changes in proportion to an area of the transfer region and moving speed of the recording medium, since the application determined is by the movement of recording medium with a speed as the portion of the recording medium is dipped in the refractive index matching liquid tank (40).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Armstong et al to modify the replication method to allow refractive index matching fluid be interposed between the master and the recording medium or the photocurable panel for the benefit of reducing unwanted reflection of light introduced by the unmatching refractive indices at the interface.
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 amended 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 and the photocurable panel 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 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 amended 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). Specifically, the large holographic optical element comprises a plurality of holographic grating patterns arranged adjacent to one another in a tiled configuration over an area larger than an area of the master used to form each of the plurality of holographic grating patterns. It is within general level skill in the art to design that a width of each seam between one of the plurality of holographic grating patterns and another holographic grating pattern adjacent thereto is from 0 mm to 800 mm, and wherein a total area of the seams is from 0% to 15% of a total area of the large holographic optical element, for the benefit of allowing the replicated holographic optical elements has the desired design.
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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended claims 9-11, these references do not teach explicitly that the before fabricating the master, to determine a size of the master based on the each of the horizontal length and vertical length of the holographic element, wherein the master is fabricated according to determined sizes. 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 amended 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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended 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 reaching 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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong 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.
Claim(s) 15 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 Armstrong et al (PN. 4,995,685).
Claim 15 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Taniguchi et al teaches, with regard to claim 15, an 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) 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 large holographic optical element, a fixed base table (61) serves as the placement unit configured to place and fix the recording material (60), configured to 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). The recoding material has an area larger than an area of the master and to which the holographic grating pattern formed by the diffraction pattern is to be transferred. Taniguchi et al teaches that the master (18) and the recording material are in close contact with each other without being attached to each other. 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).
Taniguchi et al further teaches to include a moving box (62, Figure 8) serves as the movement control unit configured to relatively move the master and the photocurable panel, after formation of the holographic grating pattern in a region of the photocurable panel is completed, by moving the light source and the master together or by moving only the photocurable panel, such that the master is positioned over a next region of the photocurable panel in which the holographic grating pattern has not been formed, and to stop the relative movement after the master is positioned over the next region.
Taniguchi et al teaches that the moving box (62, Figure 8) is 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).
Taniguchi et al further teaches the light source unit is configured to irradiate the master with the reference beam, while the master and the photocurable panel are stationary relative to each other, to form the holographic grating pattern in the next region, (please see Figure 8). The movement control unit and the light source unit are configured to repeatedly cause the relative movement and formation of the holographic grating pattern to form the holographic grating pattern over an area of the recording material larger than the area of the master.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Taniguchi et al teaches that the diffraction grating of the master is 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}).
With regard to the feature “the master is a panel on which a surface-relief grating pattern corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern has been formed by nanoimprint lithography (NIL) process, Rich et al teaches that the master (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]). The fabricated master is a panel composed of a diffractive optical element having a diffraction grating pattern to be transferred as holographic pattern to a holographic optical element, the panel having the surface relief grating corresponding to the diffraction grating pattern formed thereon by the nanoimprint lithography,
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 15 has been amended to include the phrase “a refractive index matching liquid is interposed between the master and the photocurable panel”. Claim 15 has also been amended to include the phrase “a refractive index matching liquid applying device disposed in a moving direction of a transfer region and configured to apply the refractive index matching liquid during the relative movement to the transfer region that newly occurs as the master and the photocurable panel are relatively moved, wherein the apparatus is configured such that an amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied changes in proportion to an area of the transfer region and a moving speed at which the light source and the master move together or a moving speed of the photocurable panel”.
These references do not teach such explicitly. Armstrong et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for replicating a large holographic optical element, wherein a refractive index liquid (37, Figure 4) is interposed between the master (2) and the recording medium (6). Armstrong et al teaches that the during relative movement of the recording medium, the refractive index matching liquid is applied to a transfer region that newly occurs as the master and the recording medium are relatively moved. Armstong et al teaches that the refractive index matching liquid applying device (36, Figure 4) is disposed in a moving direction of the transfer region. The amount of the refractive index matching liquid applied is determined such that the amount changes in proportion to an area of the transfer region and moving speed of the recording medium, since the application determined is by the movement of recording medium with a speed as the portion of the recording medium is dipped in the refractive index matching liquid tank (40).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Armstong et al to modify the replication method to allow refractive index matching fluid be interposed between the master and the recording medium or the photocurable panel for the benefit of reducing unwanted reflection of light introduced by the unmatching refractive indices at the interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2026 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 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 900AM-430PM.
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