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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,9, in the submission filed 10/2/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the Abstract are acknowledged and accepted.
In view of the amendments to the Claims, and Abstract, rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and objection to Abstract are withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 10/2/2025) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Re: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 15:
a) One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the holographic recording system can be configured with optical filters in any configuration to filter out ambient light. (page 2, Remarks)
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.
An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. MPEP 2163 I
Claim 15 recites “wherein said at least one laser source and said first movable platform is enclosed by an optical filter for filtering out ambient light.” This is a very specific configuration of the optical filter enclosing the light source and the first movable platform. It is not described in words or structures in the current disclosure nor in the drawings. The specification disclosing that the holographic apparatus includes an optical filter is a general statement and does not recite the specific arrangement of the filter enclosing the laser source and first platform.
In addition, to enable this invention along with the optical filter enclosing the laser source and the first platform, the specification does not describe how to make and how to use the invention.
The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent. The purpose of the requirement that the specification describes the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention. MPEP 2164
The current disclosure does not describe the optical filter in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the holographic recording system with an optical filter enclosing the laser source and the first movable platform.
Hence in view of the above arguments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is upheld.
Re: 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
Re: claim 1
b) One having ordinary skill in the art would not find the master grating diffracts at least one recording beam within said set of recording beams because the interference pattern is formed by the two produced replicating read beams. Mok does not teach “wherein the at least one master grating diffracts at least one recording beam within said set of recording beams” (page 5, Remarks)
Mok teaches in the context of fig 2 which is a basic simple layout of copying holograms with an interaction of the replicating beam 210 and the master medium 100 which has a volume multiplexed hologram. The replicating read beam 210 is identical to the writing reference beam. The interaction produces a diffracted beam 230 that is substantially identical to the original object beam 120 (page 12, lines 11-15). A similar interaction happens in fig 3b, also, where the replicating beams 316 and 318 impinge simultaneously on the master grating or medium 300 which has a plurality of volume multiplexed holograms (page 20). The replicating read beams are identical to the writing reference beams and are diffracted by the master medium 300 and the diffracted beams are identical to the original object beams (as in fig 3b shown by dotted lines). An interference happens between the diffracted beams and the transmitted replicate beams and an interference pattern is recorded in the duplicate medium 310 (page 24).
Hence Mok teaches that the at least one master grating diffracts at least one recording beam within said set of recording beams
Re: Claim 11:
c) The master medium of Mok does not form the replicating read beams, the replicating read beams pass through the master medium. Fig. 3b of Mok teaches the replicating read beams are provided prior to the master medium. One having ordinary skill in the art would not find Mok to teach claim 11 because the replicating read beams are not formed by the master medium. (page 6, Remarks)
Mok teaches (page 20,24) that the replicating read beams 316 and 318 impinge on the master medium 300 with volume multiplexed holograms. The replicating read beams are identical to the writing reference beams which were used to form the gratings in the master medium 300. The master medium 300 diffracts these replicating read beams 316 and 318 as diffracted beams 317 and 319 as in fig 3b which are identical to the original object beams used for recording the gratings in master medium 300. The diffracted beams 317,319 interfere with the transmitted replicating read beams in the duplicate medium 310 and form the replicate hologram. Hence Mok teaches that the master 300 creates or forms the diffracted beams 317, 319 which are used for recording of a replicate holographic grating.
In view of the above arguments, rejection of claims is upheld.
c) Removal of rejections of claims dependent on claim 1 and 11 is requested for the same reasons as base claims.
Dependent claims are also not patentable for at least the same reasons as the base claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein said at least one laser source and said first movable platform is enclosed by an optical filter for filtering out ambient light.” This limitation has not been described in the specification that the optical filter encloses the laser and the platform. The filter enclosing the laser and the platform not been shown in the drawings also. For the purpose of examination, the filter is interpreted to prevent ambient light from reaching the laser source and the platform.
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) 1-3,7,10-13,17,20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok et al (WO 97/01133, of record) in view of Schlottau et al (WO 2018/094292 A1, of record).
Regarding Clam 1, Mok teaches (fig 3b, fig 5b) a holographic recording system (duplication process, pg 23, lines 2-10) comprising:
a first platform (sample stage 320, pg 23, lines 2-10) configured to support a first plurality of waveguide cells (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell) for exposure;
at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b); and
at least one laser source (laser, pg 21, lines 14-17) configured to provide a set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) by directing light towards said at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b),
wherein the at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b) diffracts at least one recording beam within said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29) (“The interaction of the beam 210 and the master medium 100 produces a diffracted beam 230 that is substantially identical to the original object beam 120 on the righthand side of the master hologram 100 in Figure 1a”, page 12, lines 11-15, similar to the fig 2, in fig 3b, also, the replicate beams 316 and 318 are diffracted by the master medium 300 which has volume multiplexed holograms); and
wherein at each said predefined step at least one waveguide cell (one of the P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell) is positioned to be illuminated by at least one recording beam (replicating read beams 530, 540 illuminate the replicate medium 510) within said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19).
However, Mok does not teach
a first movable platform configured to support a first plurality of waveguide cells for exposure
wherein said first movable platform is translatable in predefined steps along at least one of two orthogonal directions;
Mok and Schlottau are related as platforms for recording holograms.
Schlottau teaches (fig 17-19)
a first movable platform (one of multiple motorized stages with holders, p145, lines 1-9) configured to support a first plurality of waveguide cells (recording cells in 2d recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, the cells which correspond to the one of multiple motorized stages) lines for exposure; and
wherein said first movable platform (one of multiple motorized stage with holders, p145, lines 1-9) is translatable in predefined steps along at least one of two orthogonal directions (translation including lateral and longitudinal offset, p145, lines 1-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first platform of Mok to include the first movable platform of Schlottau for the purpose of manufacturing using faster hologram recording methods with automated recording media translation, p143, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1.
However, Mok does not teach
further comprising a second movable platform configured to support a second plurality of waveguide cells for exposure, wherein said second movable platform is translatable in predefined steps along at least one of two orthogonal directions.
Mok and Schlottau are related as platforms for recording holograms.
Schlottau teaches (fig 17-19)
further comprising a second movable platform (another one of multiple motorized stages, p145, lines 1-6) configured to support a second plurality of waveguide cells (recording cells in 2d recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, the cells which correspond to the another one of multiple motorized stages) for exposure, wherein said second movable platform (another one of multiple motorized stages, p145, lines 1-6) is translatable in predefined steps along at least one of two orthogonal directions (another one of multiple motorized stages, p145, lines 1-6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recording system of Mok to include the second movable platform of Schlottau for the purpose of manufacturing using faster hologram recording methods with automated recording media translation, p143, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1, wherein at least one mirror (one or a plurality of curved mirrors, pg 33, lines 13-18, Mok) is disposed along at least one optical path from said at least one laser source (laser, pg 21, lines 14-17) to said first movable platform (sample stage 320, pg 23, lines 2-10, Mok, one of multiple motorized stages, p145, lines 1-6, Schlottau).
Regarding claim 7, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1, wherein said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19, Mok) comprises at least one zero-order beam (transmitted replicated read beams 316,318, pg 24, lines 14-19, fig 3b, and transmitted replicated read beams 530,540, fig 5b, are the zero order beams) and at least one diffracted beam (diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) formed by illuminating said at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b).
Regarding claim 10, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1, wherein at each said predefined step at least two waveguide cells (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell, two of the spatial units are the two waveguide cells, Mok) are positioned such that each waveguide cell (one of the P spatial units) can be illuminated by at least one recording beam (beams 530, 540) within said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19)(each spatial unit is impinged with beams 530 and 540 as in fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Mok teaches (fig 3b,5b) a method for recording holographic gratings (duplication process, pg 23, lines 2-10), the method comprising:
providing at least one laser source (laser, pg 21, lines 14-17);
forming a set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) by directing light in a first optical path from said at least one laser source (laser, pg 21, lines 14-17) towards at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b);
providing a first platform (sample stage 320, pg 23, lines 2-10) configured to support a first plurality of waveguide cells (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell);
a first set of waveguide cells (a first set of the P spatial units, pg 30, lines 3-8) within the first plurality of waveguide cells (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell) is in position to be illuminated by at least one recording beam from said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19);
exposing said first set of waveguide cells (a first set of the P spatial units, pg 30, lines 3-8) with said at least one recording beam (replicating read beams 530, 540 illuminate the replicate medium 510);
However, Mok does not teach
translating said first movable platform to a first operational state so that a first set of waveguide cells within the first plurality of waveguide cells is in position to be illuminated by at least one recording beam from said set of recording beams;
exposing said first set of waveguide cells with said at least one recording beam;
translating said first movable platform so that a second set of waveguide cells within the first plurality of waveguide cells is in position to be illuminated by with said at least one recording beam; and
exposing said second set of waveguide cells with said at least one recording beam.
Mok and Schlottau are related as platforms for recording holograms.
Schlottau teaches (fig 17-19)
translating (translation including lateral and longitudinal offset, p145, lines 1-9) said first movable platform (one of multiple motorized stages with holders, p145, lines 1-9) to a first operational state so that a first set of waveguide cells (a first group of recording cells in recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, which are exposed to recording beam in the first position of the platform) within the first plurality of waveguide cells (recording cells in 2d recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, the cells which correspond to the one of multiple motorized stages) is in position to be illuminated by at least one recording beam (one or more hologram recording beams, p146, lines 1-2);
exposing said first set of waveguide cells (a first group of recording cells in recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, which are exposed to recording beam in the first position of the platform) with said at least one recording beam (one or more hologram recording beams, p146, lines 1-2);
translating (translation including lateral and longitudinal offset, p145, lines 1-9) said first movable platform one of multiple motorized stages with holders, p145, lines 1-9) so that a second set of waveguide cells (a second group of recording cells in recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, which are exposed to recording beam in the translated position of the platform) within the first plurality of waveguide cells (recording cells in 2d recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, the cells which correspond to the one of multiple motorized stages) is in position to be illuminated by with said at least one recording beam (one or more hologram recording beams, p146, lines 1-2); and
exposing said second set of waveguide cells (a second group of recording cells in recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, which are exposed to recording beam in the translated position of the platform) with said at least one recording beam (one or more hologram recording beams, p146, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mok to include the method steps of translating the first movable platform and exposing waveguide cells of Schlottau for the purpose of manufacturing using faster hologram recording methods with automated recording media translation, p143, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11,
wherein exposing said first set of waveguide cells (a first set of the P spatial units, pg 30, lines 3-8, Mok, a first group of recording cells in recording cell array 1825, p145, lines 1-9, which are exposed to recording beam in the first position of the platform, Schlottau) comprises forming a multiplexed grating (volume multiplexed holograms, pg 20, lines 3-4, Mok).
Regarding claim 13, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11,
wherein at least one mirror (one of a plurality of curved mirrors, pg 33, lines 13-18, Mok) is disposed along said first optical path.
Regarding claim 17, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11, wherein said set of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19, Mok) comprises at least one zero-order beam (transmitted replicated read beams 316,318, pg 24, lines 14-19, fig 3b, and transmitted replicated read beams 530,540, fig 5b, are the zero order beams) and at least one diffracted beam (diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) formed by illuminating said at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b, master medium 500, pg 29, lines 22-29, fig 5b).
Regarding claim 20, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11,
wherein said first set of waveguide cells (a first set of the P spatial units, pg 30, lines 3-8, Mok) comprises at least two waveguide cells (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell, two of the spatial units are the two waveguide cells, Mok).
Claim(s) 4,5,14,15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok et al (WO 97/01133, of record) in view of Schlottau et al (WO 2018/094292 A1, of record) and further in view of Jacoby et al (US 3,993,399, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
wherein at least one beam splitter is disposed along at least one optical path from said at least one laser source to said first movable platform.
Mok-Schlottau and Jacoby are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Jacoby teaches (fig 4-6) a holographic recording unit (20, col 5, lines 24-26)
wherein at least one beam splitter (beam splitter 84, col 7, lines 45-50) is disposed along at least one optical path from said at least one laser source (laser 34, col 5, lines 24-27) to said first platform (film holder 50, col 5, lines 34-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical path of Mok-Schlottau to include the beam splitter of Jacoby for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems.
Regarding claim 5, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
further comprising an optical filter for filtering out ambient light.
Mok-Schlottau and Jacoby are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Jacoby teaches (fig 4-6) a holographic recording unit (20, col 5, lines 24-26)
further comprising an optical filter (filter 138, col 14, lines 60-66) for filtering out ambient light (blocks ambient light, col 14, lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical path of Mok-Schlottau to include the filter of Jacoby for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems used in ambient conditions (col 14, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 14, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
wherein at least one beam splitter is disposed along said first optical path.
Mok-Schlottau and Jacoby are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Jacoby teaches (fig 4-6) a holographic recording unit (20, col 5, lines 24-26)
wherein at least one beam splitter (beam splitter 84, col 7, lines 45-50) is disposed along said optical path (from laser source 34, col 5, lines 24-27 to film holder 50, col 5, lines 34-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first optical path of Mok-Schlottau to include the beam splitter of Jacoby for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems (col 14, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 15, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
wherein said at least one laser source and said first movable platform is enclosed by an optical filter for filtering out ambient light.
Mok-Schlottau and Jacoby are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Jacoby teaches (fig 4,7,8) a holographic recording unit (20, col 5, lines 24-26)
wherein said at least one laser source (laser 34, col 5, lines 24-27) and said first platform (film holder 50, col 5, lines 34-39) is enclosed (filter 138 blocks entrance to holder 50 and hence laser source 34) and by an optical filter (filter 138, col 14, lines 60-66) for filtering out ambient light (blocks ambient light, col 14, lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system of Mok-Schlottau to include the optical filter enclosing the one laser source and first platform of Jacoby for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems used in ambient conditions (col 14, lines 54-59).
Claim(s) 6,16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok et al (WO 97/01133, of record) in view of Schlottau et al (WO 2018/094292 A1, of record) and further in view of Taggi et al (US 6,824,929 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 6, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
further comprising an index matching layer disposed between said master and said waveguide cell.
Mok-Schlottau and Taggi are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Taggi teaches further comprising an index matching layer (index matching fluid, col 3, lines 1-12) disposed between said master (holographic master 50, col 2, lines 30-34) and said waveguide cell (photosensitive layer 20, col 2, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mok-Schlottau to include an index matching layer of Taggi for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems for eliminating surface reflections (col 3, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 16, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11.
However, Mok-Schlottau do not teach
wherein an index matching layer is disposed between a master grating and at least one waveguide cell within the first plurality of waveguide cells.
Mok-Schlottau and Taggi are related as optical systems in holographic recording.
Taggi teaches wherein an index matching layer (index matching fluid, col 3, lines 1-12) is disposed between said master (holographic master 50, col 2, lines 30-34) and at least one waveguide cell (photosensitive layer 20, col 2, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mok-Schlottau to include an index matching layer of Taggi for the purpose of utilizing a common optical assembly for holographic recording systems for eliminating surface reflections (col 3, lines 9-13).
Claim(s) 8,9,18,19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok et al (WO 97/01133, of record) in view of Schlottau et al (WO 2018/094292 A1, of record) and further in view of Waldern et al (DigiLens switchable Bragg grating waveguide optics for augmented reality applications, Proc. SPIE, Vol 10676, pages 1-16, May 21, 2018, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Mok-Schlottau teach the holographic recording system of claim 1, wherein each of said at least one waveguide cell (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell, Mok) is illuminated by three sets of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, two read beams are shown in figs 3b,5b, Q replicating read beams 530,540,etc, pg 30, lines 1-6, there are Q replicating read beams where Q is more than 2 and the read beams produce corresponding number of diffracted beams, diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) for forming gratings (replicate medium 510 has P spatial units, pg 30, lines 1-8).
Mok-Schlottau do not teach forming an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating.
Mok-Schlottau and Waldern are related as holographic recording systems forming gratings with contact copying using a master grating.
Waldern teaches forming (manufacture of waveguide is a printing process, contact copying, pg 4, Sec 2.3, lines 1-15) an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating (input rolled K vector grating, fold grating and an output grating, pg 3, lines 1-8, fig 10,11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mok-Schlottau to an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating of Waldern for the purpose of forming waveguides which enable switchable, tunable and digitally reconfigurable waveguide displays, pg 16, Summary, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 9, Mok-Schlottau-Waldern teach the holographic recording system of claim 8,
wherein said three sets of recording beams (replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, two read beams are shown in figs 3b,5b Q replicating read beams 530,540,etc, pg 30, lines 1-6, there are Q replicating read beams where Q is more than 2 and the read beams produce corresponding number of diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19, Mok) each comprises a zero-order beam (transmitted replicated read beams 316,318, pg 24, lines 14-19, fig 3b, and transmitted replicated read beams 530,540, fig 5b, are the zero order beams, transmitted Q replicating read beams are the zero order beams) and a diffracted beam (diffracted beams, pg 24, lines 14-19) formed by illuminating said at least one master grating (master medium 300, pg 23, lines 2-10, fig 3b) (“The interaction of the beam 210 and the master medium 100 produces a diffracted beam 230 that is substantially identical to the original object beam 120 on the righthand side of the master hologram 100 in Figure 1a”, page 12, lines 11-15, similar to the fig 2, in fig 3b, also, the replicate beams 316 and 318 are diffracted by the master medium 300 which has volume multiplexed holograms).
Regarding claim 18, Mok-Schlottau teach the method of claim 11,
wherein exposing (exposing with replicating read beams 316,318, pg 23, lines 7-15, fig 3b, replicating read beams 530, 540, pg 29, lines 22-29, two read beams are shown in figs 3b,5b, Q replicating read beams 530,540,etc, pg 30, lines 1-6, there are Q replicating read beams where Q is more than 2, Mok) said first set of waveguide cells comprises simultaneously forming gratings (replicate medium 510 has P spatial units, pg 30, lines 1-8) within each waveguide cell (P spatial units with each having Q volume multiplexed holograms in the replicate medium 510, pg 30, lines 3-8, fig 5b, each spatial unit is considered a waveguide cell, Mok) of said first set of waveguide cells (a first set of the P spatial units, pg 30, lines 3-8).
Mok-Schlottau do not teach simultaneously forming an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating in each waveguide cell.
Mok-Schlottau and Waldern are related as holographic recording systems forming gratings with contact copying using a master grating.
Waldern teaches (fig 10,11)
simultaneously forming (manufacture of waveguide is a printing process, contact copying, pg 4, Sec 2.3, lines 1-15) an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating (input rolled K vector grating, fold grating and an output grating, pg 3, lines 1-8, fig 10,11) in each waveguide cell (waveguide in fig 10,11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mok-Schlottau to the step of simultaneously forming an input grating, a fold grating, and an output grating in each waveguide cell of Waldern for the purpose of forming waveguides which enable switchable, tunable and digitally reconfigurable waveguide displays, pg 16, Summary, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 19, Mok-Schlottau-Waldern teach the method of claim 18,
wherein each of said input, fold, and output gratings (input rolled K vector grating, fold grating and an output grating, pg 3, lines 1-8, fig 10,11, Waldern, replicate medium 510 has P spatial units with Q multiplexed holograms, pg 30, lines 1-8, Mok) are formed using a single-beam interference exposure process (transmitted replicated read beams 316,318, pg 24, lines 14-19, fig 3b, and transmitted replicated read beams 530,540, fig 5b, Mok, are the zero order beams impinging on replicate medium and these interfere with corresponding diffracted beam, pg 24, lines 14-19. Hence a single read beam impinges on the medium which interferes with a corresponding diffracted beam, which is a single-beam interference process).
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 JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11/29/2025