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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Menguc (US 10,860,101) does not teach of the hologram being applied to an electrode of the electroactive polymer (EAP) because the holographic element of Menguc is mechanically coupled to the electrode of the EAP rather than being directly applied. However, as the current claim’s limitations states, “the hologram is applied to an electrode” which examiner broadly interprets to mean the hologram is contact with the electrode which is synonymous with being mechanically coupled. Thus, as Menguc teaches in Col. 27, lines 5-9, the hologram is applied to an electrode of the EAP.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit (US 2018/0348705) in view of Menguc (US 10,860,101).
Regarding claim 1, Rakshit discloses a method for producing a holographic optical element (HOE) (Figs. 3-7, element 100), comprising:
providing at least one hologram with a diffraction grating in a volume ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field … pattern diffracts the light”) of at least one holographic film ([0030], “holographic projectors 116”); and
applying the hologram (116) to at least one electroactive polymer (EAP) including a dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA) (102, [0007], “a display device with one or more electroactive polymer (EAP) strips attached to the bottom”).
Rakshit does not specifically disclose wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer.
However Menguc, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the electroactive polymer (Figs. 1-3, element 20) includes at least one elastomer layer (18) arranged between two electrodes (12, 14), the elastomer layer including an elastomer film (Col. 17, lines 56-57, “an electroactive element may include an elastomer material”), and the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer (Col. 27, lines 5-9, “an electroactive device may include or be mechanically coupled to one or more optical elements. An optical element may include … holographic element”, examiner interprets this to mean the holographic element is applied to an electrode as it is an outermost surface of the EAP device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method for producing a holographic optical element of Rakshit with the wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer as taught by Menguc, for the purpose of providing a greater degree of movement of surface regions (Col. 34, lines 26-54).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Rakshit further discloses wherein the providing of the hologram (116) includes generating the hologram by introducing the diffraction grating into the volume of the holographic film ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field as an interference pattern of seemingly random variations in the opacity, density, or surface profile of the photographic medium. When correctly lit, the interference pattern diffracts the light”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Rakshit further discloses wherein a plurality of holograms (116) are applied to a plurality of electroactive polymers (102), wherein the holograms and electroactive polymers are arranged relative to one another alternatingly in a checkerboard-like or annular form (as shown in Fig. 4, holograms and EAPs are arranged alternatingly).
Regarding claim 4, Rakshit discloses a holographic optical element (HOE) (Figs. 3-7, element 100), comprising:
a hologram ([0030], “holographic projectors 116”); and
an electroactive polymer (EAP) including a dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA) (102, [0007], “a display device with one or more electroactive polymer (EAP) strips attached to the bottom”), and wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field … pattern diffracts the light”), can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer (as shown in Fig. 4, the deformation is controllable using the EAPs 102).
Rakshit does not specifically disclose wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer.
However Menguc, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the electroactive polymer (Figs. 1-3, element 20) includes at least one elastomer layer (18) arranged between two electrodes (12, 14), the elastomer layer including an elastomer film (Col. 17, lines 56-57, “an electroactive element may include an elastomer material”), and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer (Col. 27, lines 5-9, “an electroactive device may include or be mechanically coupled to one or more optical elements. An optical element may include … holographic element”, examiner interprets this to mean the holographic element is applied to an electrode as it is an outermost surface of the EAP device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Rakshit with the wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer as taught by Menguc, for the purpose of providing a greater degree of movement of surface regions (Col. 34, lines 26-54).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above and Rakshit further discloses wherein the electroactive polymer (102) includes a plurality of independently controllable regions (as shown in Figs. 3-4, 102 is split into a plurality of regions).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above and Rakshit further discloses wherein a plurality of, holograms (116) are applied to a plurality of, electroactive polymers (102), and the holograms and the electroactive polymers are arranged alternatingly relative to one another, in the manner of a checkerboard or in a circular (as shown in Fig. 4, holograms and EAPs are arranged alternatingly).
Regarding claim 9, Rakshit discloses a method for using a holographic optical element (Figs. 3-7, element 100), the holographic optical element including:
a hologram ([0030], “holographic projectors 116”), and
an electroactive polymer (EAP) including a dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA) (102, [0007], “a display device with one or more electroactive polymer (EAP) strips attached to the bottom”),
and wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field … pattern diffracts the light”), can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer (as shown in Fig. 4, the deformation is controllable using the EAPs 102),
the method comprising:
controlling the elastomer layer of the electroactive polymer and/or controlling a plurality of independently controllable regions of the elastomer layer of the electroactive polymer (as shown in Fig. 4, the EAPs are individually controlled), to provide one or more of the following functions in the hologram of the holographic optical element:
a) varying a playback angle of the holographic function of the hologram,
b) varying a playback wavelength of the holographic function of the hologram,
c) shifting a focal point of the holographic function of the hologram,
d) modulating a wavefront of the holographic function of the hologram ([0033], “Raising the height of the first microfluidic display layer 108 also changes the direction of the holographic projector 114, which changes the direction of the projected light 118”)
Rakshit does not specifically disclose wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer.
However Menguc, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the electroactive polymer (Figs. 1-3, element 20) includes at least one elastomer layer (18) arranged between two electrodes (12, 14), the elastomer layer including an elastomer film (Col. 17, lines 56-57, “an electroactive element may include an elastomer material”), and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer (Col. 27, lines 5-9, “an electroactive device may include or be mechanically coupled to one or more optical elements. An optical element may include … holographic element”, examiner interprets this to mean the holographic element is applied to an electrode as it is an outermost surface of the EAP device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Rakshit with the wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer as taught by Menguc, for the purpose of providing a greater degree of movement of surface regions (Col. 34, lines 26-54).
Regarding claim 12, Rakshit discloses a display device including data glasses or a display ([0030], “The system 100 is a flexible display 104”), the display device comprising:
at least one optical element (116), wherein the optical element including a holographic optical element ([0030], “holographic projectors 116”) which includes:
a hologram ([0031], “holographic object 116”), and
an electroactive polymer (EAP) including a dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA) (102, [0007], “a display device with one or more electroactive polymer (EAP) strips attached to the bottom”),
and wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field … pattern diffracts the light”), can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer (as shown in Fig. 4, the deformation is controllable using the EAPs 102);
wherein the holographic optical element is configured to provide the holographic function ([0032], “degrees of freedom to the holographic projectors 116. Accordingly, the holographic objects 114 can be created in wide field of view”).
Rakshit does not specifically disclose wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer.
However Menguc, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the electroactive polymer (Figs. 1-3, element 20) includes at least one elastomer layer (18) arranged between two electrodes (12, 14), the elastomer layer including an elastomer film (Col. 17, lines 56-57, “an electroactive element may include an elastomer material”), and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer (Col. 27, lines 5-9, “an electroactive device may include or be mechanically coupled to one or more optical elements. An optical element may include … holographic element”, examiner interprets this to mean the holographic element is applied to an electrode as it is an outermost surface of the EAP device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Rakshit with the wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer as taught by Menguc, for the purpose of providing a greater degree of movement of surface regions (Col. 34, lines 26-54).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit (US 2018/0348705) in view of Menguc (US 10,860,101), further in view of Aschwanden (US 2011/0267680).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a fastening device is provided on a side of the hologram opposite the electrode of the electroactive polymer to which the hologram is applied, wherein the fastening device provides a counter-support against the deformation of the electroactive polymer that acts on the hologram.
However Aschwanden, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein a fastening device (Figs. 1-2, elements 107-108) is provided on a side of the hologram opposite the electrode (106) of the electroactive polymer to which the hologram is applied (104), wherein the fastening device provides a counter-support against the deformation of the electroactive polymer that acts on the hologram (as shown in Fig. 1B, 107-108 provides counter-support to deformation of the EAP 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Rakshit in view of Menguc with the wherein a fastening device is provided on a side of the hologram opposite the electrode of the electroactive polymer to which the hologram is applied, wherein the fastening device provides a counter-support against the deformation of the electroactive polymer that acts on the hologram as taught by Aschwanden, for the purpose of large deformation of the optical element ([0020-0024]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit (US 2018/0348705) in view of Menguc (US 10,860,101), further in view of Ouderkirk (US 11,067,848).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rakshit teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the holographic optical element includes a layer stack including a plurality of holograms and/or a plurality of electroactive polymers which are arranged stacked.
However Ouderkirk, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the holographic optical element (Figs. 1-2) includes a layer stack (155, 255) including a plurality of holograms and/or a plurality of electroactive polymers which are arranged stacked (Col. 8, lines 4-8, “the optically transparent materials (e.g., the first optically transparent materials 140a and 140b and second optically transparent materials 150a and 150b) may include electroactive polymers and/or elastomer materials”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Rakshit in view of Menguc with the wherein the holographic optical element includes a layer stack including a plurality of holograms and/or a plurality of electroactive polymers which are arranged stacked as taught by Ouderkirk, for the purpose of improving ease of manufacturing (Col. 1, lines 18-32).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen (DE 102019214841 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation), in view of Menguc (US 10,860,101) further in view of Rakshit (US 2018/0348705).
Regarding claim 10, Frederiksen discloses a sensor device configured to detect backscattered light ([0001], “The invention relates to a filter device for a lidar system”), comprising:
at least one optical element including a filter element and/or a deflection element ([0001], “to a filter device for a lidar system”);
wherein the optical element includes a holographic optical element ([0016], “the detection device comprises a first holographic element”) which include:
a hologram ([0007], “the holographic optical element is formed by a volume hologram”), and
an electroactive polymer (EAP) including a dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA) ([0018], “further comprises electroactive polymers”).
Frederiksen does not specifically disclose wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer.
However Menguc, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the electroactive polymer (Figs. 1-3, element 20) includes at least one elastomer layer (18) arranged between two electrodes (12, 14), the elastomer layer including an elastomer film (Col. 17, lines 56-57, “an electroactive element may include an elastomer material”), and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer (Col. 27, lines 5-9, “an electroactive device may include or be mechanically coupled to one or more optical elements. An optical element may include … holographic element”, examiner interprets this to mean the holographic element is applied to an electrode as it is an outermost surface of the EAP device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Frederiksen with the wherein the electroactive polymer includes at least one elastomer layer arranged between two electrodes, the elastomer layer including an elastomer film, and wherein the hologram is applied to an electrode of the electrodes of the electroactive polymer as taught by Menguc, for the purpose of providing a greater degree of movement of surface regions (Col. 34, lines 26-54).
Modified Frederiksen does not specifically disclose wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram, can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer.
However Rakshit, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a holographic element, teaches wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram ([0002], “Holograms typically include an encoded light field … pattern diffracts the light”), can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer (as shown in Fig. 4, the deformation is controllable using the EAPs 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the holographic optical element of Frederiksen in view of Menguc with the wherein the hologram or a holographic function which can be provided using the hologram including diffraction properties of the hologram, can be adapted using a controllable deformation of the electroactive polymer as taught by Rakshit, for the purpose of increasing a projection boundary from a display ([0029]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Frederiksen teaches as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above and Frederiksen further discloses wherein the sensor device is a lidar sensor ([0001], “The invention relates to a filter device for a lidar system”), and wherein a deflection angle and/or a wavelength and/or far-field properties of an emitted laser beam can be varied using the holographic optical element ([0006], “the holographic optical elements can also be assigned a characteristic wavelength and angle selectivity or filter function”).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 30 December 2025