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 11, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has mended claims 13, 22, and 23.
Claims 13-23 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “sending parameter” recited in claims 13, 22 and 23 and the phrase “diffraction characteristics” recited in claims 13, 22 and 23 are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear exactly the parameter is referred to what actual physical property and it is not clear the characteristics are referred to what actual properties. These make the scopes of claims unclear. The specific property referred to the “sending parameters” should be included in the claims to clear the confusion and to considered as the positive limitations of the claims. The amendment to claims concerning “diffraction characteristics” does not seem to clarify the confusing.
The scopes of claim 16 is confusing since it the outputting step is to output light beam to the hologram at different angle, it will not be able to acquire detection parameter from a light reflected from a different observation position.
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.
Claim(s) 13-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Stevenson et al (US 2020/0158632 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Yamamoto et al (US 2010/0097580 A1) and US patent issued to Ouderkirk et al (PN. 11,366,260).
Claims 13, 22 and 23 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Stevenson et al teaches, with regard to claims 13 and 22, a test system for a holographic optical element that implicitly includes the method for testing a holographic optical element that serves as the control unit and the method for ascertaining a diffraction characteristics wherein the system and method comprise a step of outputting an incident beam as the light beam to an observation position on the hologram element (HOE, Figures 1, 3 and 5), using a light source, wherein the light beam includes at least one predefined wavelength and at least one sending parameter such as power associated with the wavelength, a step of acquiring at least one reflection beam diffracted at the observation position or the diffracted beam using a detector (please see Figure 3 and paragraph [0031]) wherein a detection parameter such as power of the reflected beam is acquired at the predetermined wavelength. Stevenson et al teaches that a diffraction efficiency, DE, of the hologram element at the observation position, that serves as the diffraction characteristics may be determined based on the step of comparing the sending parameter, such as the power of the incident light Pinc, and the detection parameter, such as the detected power of the diffracted light beam Pdiff.
Furthermore, Yamamoto et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a hologram element (104 or 107, Figure 1A) may be utilized in a smart glasses, (Figure 1A). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Yamamoto et al to utilize the hologram element in smart glasses for the benefit of expanding the application areas of the hologram element.
With regard to claim 23, Stevenson et al teaches that a computer may be utilized to control the system and the method for testing the holographic optical element, (please see Figure 4). It is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to include a non-transitory machine readable storage medium on which a computer program ascertaining a diffraction characteristics or the diffraction efficiency of the hologram element be stored and to be executed by the computer to perform the ascertaining steps, taught by Stevenson et al in light of Yamamoto et al, with details stated for claims 13 and 22 above.
Claims 13, 22 and 23 have been amended to include the phrase “wherein the diffraction characteristics is ascertained for the hologram element integrated into or disposed on a lens of the smart glasses, the hologram element being at least one of a reflection hologram or a transmission hologram configured as a hologram layer or a plurality of hologram layers”.
The Stevenson reference does not teach explicitly that the hologram element is for smart glasses. Ouderkirk et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a smart glasses that is comprised of a hologram element (220, Figure 2) that is disposed on a lens (210) of the smart glasses wherein the hologram element is a reflection hologram as a hologram layer (220, Figure 2). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ouderkirk et al to modify the holographic optical element of Stevenson to make the holographic optical element may be disposed on a lens of a smart glasses for the benefit of allowing the holographic optical element may be applied to a smart glasses.
With regard to claim 14, Stevenson et al teaches that a white light source may be used in the acquiring step to obtain the detector parameter of the reflection beam or the diffracted beam, which means the detection parameter is obtained using a wavelength different from the predefined wavelength used for recording the hologram element, (please see paragraph [0038]). Specifically a corrected diffraction efficiency DEcorr, that is a function of wavelength which means the detected parameter of the diffracted light may be obtained by light of different wavelength from the predefined wavelength.
With regard to claim 15, Stevenson et al teaches that the sending parameter represents power which therefore is intensity value of the light beam. Stevenson et al teaches that in the acquiring step the intensity (or power) and/or wavelength of the diffracted beam or the reflection beam is acquired as the detection parameter.
With regard to claim 16, Stevenson et al teaches that in the outputting step that the light beam is output to the hologram element at a different angle, by rotating the light source with respect to the hologram element, (please see Figure 3(a)). In the acquiring step the detection parameter such as the power is acquired for diffracted light beam or a reflected light beam, (please see Figure 3(a)). This reference does not teach explicitly that the detection parameter is acquired for reflected light at a different observation point. However this feature is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. It therefore cannot be examined further.
With regard to claim 17, Stevenson et al teaches that the in the outputting step the light beam is output to the hologram element which has been rotated relative the light source and the detector at least in at least one axis, (please see Figure 3).
With regard to claim 18, Yamamoto et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the outputting step light beam is output using a scanning element (103) that serves as the deflection element wherein at least one tilt axis of the deflection element extends through a position of an eye, (please see Figure 1A).
With regard to claim 19, Stevenson et al in light of Yamamoto et al teaches that in the outputting step, a further light beam is output to the observation position, wherein the further light beam includes at least one predefined further wavelength, (noted that Stevenson et al teaches a white light which includes a broad band for the light beam to be inputted) and at least one further sending parameter, (such as power), associated with the further wavelength, wherein, in the acquiring step, at least one further reflection beam reflected or diffracted light beam at the observation position is acquired using at least one detector, (please see Figures 1, 3 and 5), wherein a further detection parameter of the further reflection beam is acquired at the predefined further wavelength, and wherein, in the comparing step, the further sending parameter is compared with the further detection parameter to ascertain the diffraction characteristic, such as the diffraction efficiency, of the hologram element at the observation position.
With regard to claim 20, Stevenson et al teaches that in the outputting step the light beam is output using a light source configured to output spectrally broadband such as white light, (please see paragraphs [0039] and [0040]) wherein the light source may include laser light source, (please see paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al, Yamamoto et al and Ouderkirk et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of the Chinese Patent application by Liu et al (CN111006854 A1).
The testing system and method for a hologram optical element taught by Stevenson et al in light of Yamamoto et al and Ouderkirk et al as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 21, Stevenson et al teaches that the diffraction characteristics such as diffraction efficiency of the hologram optical element is ascertained, wherein in the acquiring step the power of the detected diffracted light beam and the power of the incident light beam are being compared, (please see Figure 1), which implicitly means that the power of the incident light in the outputting step is detected and measured. Liu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method and system for testing diffraction efficiency of a nano-structure wherein in the outputting step a light splitting unit is used to split the incident light for generating a reference light to a reference detection system. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Liu et al to modify the testing system of Stevenson et al for the benefit of allowing a reference light be used to generate the sending parameter or the power of the incident light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025 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 claims that have been fully considered and addressed in the reasons for rejection 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 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