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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 1 stands amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Horimai identically discloses that transmittance occurs (Figs. 2C), which is otherwise an inherent feature of photopolymer recording of holograms, i.e. interference patterns: if there is no interference inside the medium, there can be no hologram. Therefore Horimai discloses transmittance above 0% and below 100% on this basis, and since Horimai is directed to improving display of information through 3D images by such holograms (e.g. ¶2), discloses transmittance of visible light wavelengths, which anticipate the claimed range. The claimed ranges being encompassed by the prior art, optimization of transmittance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toward achieving the desired diffraction efficiency and thus desired image brightness, as further detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horimai (US 20110134497 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Horimai teaches a method for producing a holographic optical element (111) (Figs. 2B, 4B, showing parallel light illuminating holographic optical element layer i.e. interference pattern layer 112; Abstract, ¶35, ¶50-52, ¶57, ¶62, ¶84), the method comprising:
illuminating a first surface of a photopolymer resin layer (hologram recording layer 112) with a first parallel laser beam (first beam being the parallel beam from light generation means 103), where the photopolymer resin layer comprises a photopolymer resin (¶35);
illuminating a second surface of the photopolymer resin layer through a retardation layer (105) disposed on the second surface (¶35, “For example, the polarization conversion means 105, or the polarization conversion means 105 and polarization light selecting reflection means 106 may be stacked in the recording medium 111 integrally.”) with a second parallel laser beam (second beam being reflected from reflection means 108), wherein the second surface is opposite the first surface (top and bottom of 112); and
recording an interference pattern in the photopolymer resin layer (a hologram is an interference pattern by definition), wherein the interference pattern is created by interference between the first parallel laser beam and the second parallel laser beam (¶57),
wherein the photopolymer resin layer has a light transmittance higher than 0% and lower than or equal to 100% (Figs. 2 all showing transmittance), for light which has a wavelength of 400 nm to 1,600 nm (¶2, the invention being directed to three dimensional image display, thus the recorded interference pattern must be for visible wavelengths which anticipate the claimed range), and with which the photopolymer resin layer is illuminated in a direction perpendicular to the other surface of the photopolymer resin layer, which is a surface on which the retardation layer is not provided (see e.g. Fig. 2C, which shows the interference of the incident beam transmitted into the photopolymer resin layer from the first surface and the reflected beam transmitted into the photopolymer resin layer from the second surface).
Horimai does not explicitly show wherein the photopolymer resin layer has a light transmittance higher than 0% and lower than or equal to 70%, or higher than 90% and lower than or equal to 100%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, Horimai has taught the general conditions of the claimed method as detailed above. Benefit of optimizing the properties of photopolymer resin layer include tuning the diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element and thus obtaining the desired brightness of the resulting reconstruction.
Therefore, absent any criticality of the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the properties of the retardation layer of Hiromai and thus attained improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein an incident angle at which the first parallel laser beam is incident on the photopolymer resin layer is greater than 42 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first parallel laser beam is a linearly polarized beam, and the second parallel laser beam is a circularly polarized beam or an elliptically polarized beam (Figs. 2B and 4B, ¶57, ¶62).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the retardation layer has a lamdda/4 wavelength phase retardation characteristic (¶57).
Regarding claim 6, Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the retardation layer has a light transmittance higher than 90% and lower than or equal to 100%, and the retardation layer has a haze higher than 0% and lower than 1%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, Horimai has taught the general conditions of the claimed method as detailed above. Benefit of optimizing the properties of the retardation layer include higher brightness of the recording beams and thus improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the properties of the retardation layer of Hiromai and thus attained improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the retardation layer converts a circularly polarized beam or an elliptically polarized beam to a linearly polarized beam (¶50-52, Fig. 2B shows the circularly or elliptically polarized beam 132c changed to linear 132d by retardation layer 105).
Regarding claim 8, Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches that the retardation layer can be optionally part of the optical element stack as cited above, but does not explicitly show further comprising: removing the retardation layer from the photopolymer resin layer having the interference pattern recorded therein.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed the retardation layer in any optical design where polarization retardation prior to illumination of the holographic optical element is not desired, e.g. when using a light source emitting a reconstruction beam, since the option of having it present is known from Horimai.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising bleaching the photopolymer resin layer, having the interference pattern recorded therein, by illumination with light having a wavelength in a UV-Vis wavelength region (¶88, fixing means including ultraviolet lamp).
Regarding claim 10, Horimai teaches a holographic optical element (111) comprising:
a photopolymer resin layer (hologram recording layer 112) comprising a first surface (top) and a second surface opposite the first surface (bottom), wherein the photopolymer resin layer comprising a photopolymer resin (¶35); and
a retardation layer (105) disposed on the second surface of the photopolymer resin layer (¶35, “For example, the polarization conversion means 105, or the polarization conversion means 105 and polarization light selecting reflection means 106 may be stacked in the recording medium 111 integrally.”), wherein the photopolymer resin layer has an interference pattern recorded therein (hologram being an interference pattern by definition), where the interference pattern was created by interference between laser beams (as in Fig. 2B, see ¶50-52, ¶57), for light which has a wavelength of 400 nm to 1,600 nm (Abstract, “easily observable three-dimensional image” plainly implying visible wavelengths; RGB is exceptionally well known to fall within the claimed range) and which illuminates the photopolymer resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer (Fig. 2B).
wherein the photopolymer resin layer has a light transmittance higher than 0% and lower than or equal to 100% (Figs. 2 all showing transmittance), for light which has a wavelength of 400 nm to 1,600 nm (¶2, the invention being directed to three dimensional image display, thus the recorded interference pattern must be for visible wavelengths which anticipate the claimed range), and with which the photopolymer resin layer is illuminated in a direction perpendicular to the other surface of the photopolymer resin layer, which is a surface on which the retardation layer is not provided (see e.g. Fig. 2C, which shows the interference of the incident beam transmitted into the photopolymer resin layer from the first surface and the reflected beam transmitted into the photopolymer resin layer from the second surface).
Horimai does not explicitly show wherein the photopolymer resin layer has a light transmittance higher than 0% or lower than or equal to 70%, or higher than 90% and lower than or equal to 100%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, Horimai has taught the general conditions of the claimed method as detailed above. Benefit of optimizing the properties of photopolymer resin layer include tuning the diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element and thus obtaining the desired brightness of the resulting reconstruction.
Therefore, absent any criticality of the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the properties of the retardation layer of Hiromai and thus attained improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Horimai teaches the holographic optical element of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the retardation layer has a lambda/4 wavelength phase retardation characteristic (¶57).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Horimai teaches the holographic optical element of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the retardation layer has a light transmittance higher than 90% and lower than or equal to 100%, and the retardation layer has a haze higher than 0% and lower than 1%.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, Horimai has taught the general conditions of the claimed method as detailed above. Benefit of optimizing the properties of the retardation layer include higher brightness of the recording beams and thus improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the properties of the retardation layer of Hiromai and thus attained improved diffraction efficiency of the recorded holographic optical element.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Horimai teaches the holographic optical element of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the interference pattern is created by interference between a first parallel laser beam and a second parallel laser beam (Figs. 2B and 4B, first beam from initial incidence and second following reflection by 108), wherein the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer (top) is illuminated by the first parallel laser beam (Figs. 2B and 4B), and wherein the second surface of the photopolymer resin layer (bottom), is illuminated through the retardation layer by the second parallel laser beam (Figs. 2B and 4B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horimai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono (JP H09 185313 A, of record) and Ando (JP 2003202795 A, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Horimai teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein illuminating the first surface further comprises: illuminating the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer through a prism disposed on the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer.
Ono explicitly shows wherein illuminating the first surface further comprises: illuminating the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer through a prism disposed on the first surface of the photopolymer resin layer (Figs. 1, 2, 4, illuminating photopolymer 3 through prism 10). Ando shows a similar recording method including that the prism (961 or 962) is disposed directly on the surface of the recording layer (91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the prism recording step of Ono and Ando with that of Hiromai for thus changing the angle at which the recording beams interfere and thus the diffraction angle of the resulting holographic optical element, e.g. for the purpose of folding a beam path to reduce form factor of an optical system.
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 COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872