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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on December 22, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 and has canceled claim 6.
Claims 1-4, and 7-11 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) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Min et al (PN. 10,921,752) in light of the US patent application publication by Bouchal et al (US 2020/0249626 A1) and the US patent application publication by Escuti et al (US 2016/0011353 A1).
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Min et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a self-interference digital holographic printing system, (please see Figures 3, 4, 7 and 10) that is comprised of a light source for illuminating an object (10, Figure 8) to make the object serves as the light source for the holographic system, a geometric phase lens (100) serves as the geometric phase holographic element having a first phase retardation, (please see Figures 2A to 2C) and configured to transmit or modulate an incident light incident from the light source. The printing system further comprises an image sensor (200, Figures 1, 7 and 8), serves as the optical member, for sensing and recording a wavefront comprising an interference pattern resulted from the self-interference of light transmitted through the geometric phase holographic element.
The recording of the wavefront self-interference pattern by the sensor (200) implies the copying and printing of the wavefront through self-interference of the light beams transmitted through the geometric phase holographic element. The self-interference digital holographic system therefore serves as a holographic printing system.
Min et al teaches that the holographic printing system is a self-interference holographic printing system which implicitly means that the geometric phase holographic element (100) and the optical member (200) are spaced part by a distance sufficient to enable the self-interference of the incident light that has transmitted through the geometric phase holographic element.
The reference has met all the limitations of the claims. With regard to the amended phrase “a geometric phase holographic element having a first phase retardation of l/4, as shown Figure 2C of Min et al, the geometric phase holographic element would covert the incident light (L) with linear polarization into light beams of circular polarizations (LCP, RCP or L1 and L2). It is known in the art that a linear polarized beam would be converted to circular polarized light by a retarder plate having a phase retardation of l/4. This therefore suggests that the geometric phase holographic element would have phase retardation that with a value of l/4.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “an incoherent light source”. Min et al teaches that the light source is an object (10, Figures 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8) that is illuminated, which may serve as incoherent light source. Bouchal et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a n polarization adapted interferometric system that is comprised of an incoherent light source (1, Figures 1-4, paragraph [0038]) that is incident on a geometric phase grating (4, please see paragraph [0043]) to generate self-interference pattern. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Bouchai et al to modify the holographic printing system to specifically use an incoherent light source for the benefit of allowing different light sources could used in the printing system.
Min et al further teaches to include a patterned or space division phase shifter (700, Figures 7 and 8) to change the polarization state of the interfering light, (please see column 11, line 63 to column 12, line 14). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the phase shifter is an optical anisotropic element with a thickness of the optical anisotropic element determined to have a second phase retardation of l/2.
Escuti et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system that is comprised of a light source (105, Figure 1 or 805, Figure 8), a geometric phase holographic element (GPH, 110 or 810), and an optical member for receiving a wavefront through self-interference of light transmitted through the geometrical phase holographic element that includes a retarder (PR, 120 or 820) having a phase retardation of half-wave, (please see paragraph [0107]). A phase retarder is implicitly an optical anisotropic element.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Escuti et al to alternatively make the phase shifter to be an anisotropic element with a phase retardation of half-wave for the benefit of modulating the interfering light as desired.
With regard to claim 2, Min et al teaches that the holographic printing system is based on a polarization self-interference in which the incoherent light source (10), the geometric phase holographic element (100) and the optical member (200 or 20) are disposed in a line, (please see Figures 1, 7 and 8).
With regard to amended claim 4, both Min et al and Escuti et al teaches that the incident light after passes the geometric phase hologram will be modulated to create circularly polarized light with orthogonal handiness (i.e. left hand and right hand circular polarization states), which implicitly means that it has a first phase retardation of quarter wavelength (l/4). This implicitly enable the holographic printing on the optical member by transmitting 50% of the incident light from the incoherent light source as a first polarized component as the incident light and transmitting remaining 50% of the incident light from the incoherent light source as a second polarized component modulated from the incident light to have self-polarization interference, (please see Figure 2C of Min et al).
With regard to claim 7, Min et al teaches that the geometric phase holographic element forms interference patterns by using one beam and modulation of the one beam, (please see Figures 1, 7 and 8).
With regard to claim 8, the self-interference holographic system taught by Min et al implicitly includes the method for performing holographic printing using the system. The method comprises the step of aligning the light source (10, Figures 1, 7 and 8), the geometric phase holographic element (100) and the optical member (20 or 200), sending light into the geometric phase holographic element through the light source, performing holographic printing on the optical member through self-interference of the incident light that has transmitted through the geometric phase holographic element and performing post processing on the optical member, such as the sensor, (please see the abstract).
With regard to claim 9, Min et al teaches that the optical member is disposed at a position at which a plurality of light beams generated at the geometrical phase holographic element forms an interference pattern by meeting again.
With regard to amended claim 10, in light of Min et al wherein a phase shifter (700, Figure 7) may be formed on the sensor (200), the retarder with half-wave retardation value taught by Escuti et al may also be formed or coated on the sensor. Since the retarder taught by Escuti et al has a half wave retardation value this implicitly means or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to determine the thickness of the anisotropic element to explicitly make to make the retarder have half wave retardation.
With regard to claim 11, Min et al teaches that the geometric phase holographic element forms interference patterns by using one beam and modulation of the one beam, (please see Figures 1, 7 and 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 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 addressed for the reasons set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights