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 (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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed September 11, 2025. Claim 6 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated.
Namely, applicant incorporated the subject matter of former dependent claim 6 into independent claim 1. Applicant asserts that the previously applied prior art rejection of claim 6 fails to disclose the limitation. Namely, applicant notes that Lee et al., in view of Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.” As cited below, it is noted that Lee et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except “wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.” The Kim et al. reference is used to disclose the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). The disclosure of Kim et al. suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find the optimized grouping of hogels based on the number/size and the amount of information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size” in order to produce a high quality reproduction.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 8.
In regard to newly added independent claim 14, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the grouping the hogels further includes determining a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.” However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “the grouping the hogels further includes determining a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern” in order to produce a high quality reproduction. Namely, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the output of the printing device.
Therefore claims 1-14 are rejected as set forth 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, 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0177686 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2015/108272).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a holographic printing device comprising (see e.g. Figures 2, 4-6) :
a fringe pattern generation unit 110/120, configured to generate a holographic fringe pattern and to segment the generated fringe pattern into hogels (see e.g. paragraph [0041] and note the recording and reference light interfere to generate the interference pattern);
a multiplexing unit 160 (denoted “controller”) configured to group the hogels segmented by the fringe pattern generation unit according to areas (see e.g. paragraph [0067] where it is noted the controller may transmit holographic images to each region); and
a plurality of optical heads 411-414 (denoted “converging module”) configured to receive the grouped hogels and to print the hogels on corresponding areas of a holographic medium 400 (denoted “holograph film”), respectively (see e.g. paragraph [0095] and Figure 4 and note that the converging modules converge the light to generate the interference pattern).
Lee et al. fails to disclose
wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.
However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size” in order to produce a high quality reproduction.
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.
Determining the grouping of the hogels based on the application would be considered within ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a high quality hologram.
In regard to claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of optical heads 411-414 are configured to print hogels simultaneously (see e.g. paragraphs [0007], [0069], [0091], [0093] for simultaneous hologram recording).
In regard to claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the plurality of optical heads comprise (see e.g. Figure 4):
a first optical head 411 configured to print hogels on a first area 401 of the holographic medium 400; and
a second optical head 412 configured to print hogels on a second area 402 of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 4, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and wherein the plurality of optical heads comprise (see e.g. Figure 4):
a third optical head 413 configured to print hogels on a third area 403 of the holographic medium 400; and
a fourth optical head 414 configured to print hogels on a fourth area 404 of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 5, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, and (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the first area 401 is an area of a left upper portion of the holographic medium 400,
wherein the second area 402 is an area of a right upper portion of the holographic medium 400,
wherein the third area 403 is an area of a left lower portion of the holographic medium 400, and
wherein the fourth area 404 is an area of a right lower portion of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.”
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
Determining the grouping of the hogels based on the application would be considered within ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a high quality hologram.
In regard to claim 8, Lee et al. discloses a holographic printing method comprising:
generating a holographic fringe pattern (see e.g. paragraph [0082]);
segmenting the generated fringe pattern into hogels (see e.g. paragraphs [0088]-[0095] where it is noted the controller provides the reference/recording beams to the element 400);
grouping the hogels segmented by the fringe pattern generation unit according to areas (see e.g. paragraph [0097]); and
printing the grouped hogels on corresponding areas of a holographic medium, respectively (see e.g. paragraph [0103]).
Lee et al. fails to disclose
wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.
However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size” in order to produce a high quality reproduction.
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to group hogels according to areas only when a size of the fringe pattern is larger than or equal to a threshold size.
Determining the grouping of the hogels based on the application would be considered within ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a high quality hologram.
In regard to claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and
wherein the printing includes printing the holes simultaneously using a plurality of optical heads 411-414 (see e.g. paragraphs [0007], [0069], [0091], [0093] for simultaneous hologram recording).
In regard to claim 10, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and wherein the plurality of optical heads comprise (see e.g. Figure 4):
a first optical head 411 configured to print hogels on a first area 401 of the holographic medium 400; and
a second optical head 412 configured to print hogels on a second area 402 of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 11, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and wherein the plurality of optical heads comprise (see e.g. Figure 4):
a third optical head 413 configured to print hogels on a third area 403 of the holographic medium 400; and
a fourth optical head 414 configured to print hogels on a fourth area 404 of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the first area 401 is an area of a left upper portion of the holographic medium 400,
wherein the second area 402 is an area of a right upper portion of the holographic medium 400,
wherein the third area 403 is an area of a left lower portion of the holographic medium 400, and
wherein the fourth area 404 is an area of a right lower portion of the holographic medium 400.
In regard to claim 13, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.”
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the multiplexing unit is configured to determine a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
Determining the grouping of the hogels based on the application would be considered within ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a high quality hologram.
In regard to claim 14, Lee et al. discloses a holographic printing method comprising:
generating a holographic fringe pattern (see e.g. paragraph [0082]);
segmenting the generated fringe pattern into hogels (see e.g. paragraphs [0088]-[0095] where it is noted the controller provides the reference/recording beams to the element 400);
grouping the hogels segmented by the fringe pattern generation unit according to areas (see e.g. paragraph [0097]); and
printing the grouped hogels on corresponding areas of a holographic medium, respectively (see e.g. paragraph [0103]).
Lee et al. fails to discloses
wherein the grouping the hogels further includes determining a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
However, Kim et al. discloses the number and size of the holograms constituting the fringe pattern are inversely proportional to the amount of image information and resolution that can be expressed by the apparatus displaying the pattern (see e.g. page 3, second to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a configuration in which “the grouping the hogels further includes determining a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern” in order to produce a high quality reproduction.
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim et al. with wherein the grouping the hogels further includes determining a number of areas to divide and sizes of the areas according to a shape of the fringe pattern.
Determining the optimized number of areas and sizes would lead to the best reproduction of the image.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights