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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on March 10, 2026. The amendments were to address formal requirements of the abstract. These amendments to the specification are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combination of Endo and Kojima (and/or Vick) fail to disclose or teach “each of the plurality of interference fringes … has no discontinuous portions and is continuous inside the hologram region excluding an interface at which the hologram region is adjacent to another region” as now recited in claim 1, the examiner is unpersuaded. Fringes (plural) are understood to be a pattern of light and dark formed in a holographic media (e.g. a photographic emulsion) where said pattern acts as a diffraction grating. A fringe (singular) is interpreted to be a single light or dark portion (e.g. a line) of said pattern. For discussion purposes, the examiner will refer to a single dark portion of a holographic pattern to define a single fringe, similar to applicant’s specification, see fringe patterns 20 & 22 in figure 2 and single fringes 21 in figure 3. Using the plain meaning of the words in light of the specification a single fringe would be continuous. For example, if along a line a dark portion stopped and restarted (e.g. a dashed line) each portion (of the dashed line) would be its own single fringe. That is to say a single fringe is continuous by definition.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Endo’s overlapping holographic patterns (see figure 1a) forms discontinuous portion, the examiner is unpersuaded. The overlapping area are areas would have superimposed patterns. Superimposed patterns are not discontinuous, per se, e.g. see instant application figure 2 showing superimposed holographic patters 20 and 22. As such, “each of the plurality of interference fringes” would be continuous. Further, the claim further provides an exception at other regions, i.e. “has no discontinuous portions and is continuous inside the hologram region excluding an interface at which the hologram region is adjacent to another region” (emphasis added by examiner). Thus, in arguendo, any “discontinuities” at the interface of regions is allowed by the claim. Further, Endo also teaches a means to create a volume hologram element without overlapping/superimposed regions, see figures 12-14.
Regarding applicant’s discussion that Endo’s method of making is different, the examiner is unpersuaded. The claims are device claims. The method of making is unclaimed1. Insofar as the claims are understood, using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, all of the device limitations are read on, as set forth below. If applicant wishes to claim a method of manufacture (which appears to be applicant’s innovation) the examiner strongly and respectfully suggests filing a continuation with claims directed to such a method.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “excluding an interface at which the hologram region is adjacent to another region” has clarity issues. It is unclear if “another region” is the non-hologram region introduced earlier or a new/different element or something else. In light of the specification, see paragraph [0020] on pages 7-8, the “another region” interfacing with the hologram region has three possible interpretations
one of multiple superposition holographic patterns in the hologram region
a blank region, other than the non-hologram region, where a holographic pattern is suppose to be
the entire hologram region (manufactured by successively forming interference fringe regions2) having a predetermined shape to be arranged with no gap
Regarding the first option – multiple holographic patterns in the hologram region is allowed by the specification, e.g. see figure 2 patterns 20 and 22, and required by the claims, e.g. “a plurality of interference fringes each of which selectively diffracts light having a different wavelength are formed in the entire hologram region”. Regarding the second and third option – the “another region” is a portion (either blank or overlapping) of the hologram region. Insofar as the examiner can discern, in light of the specification, interview and remarks, that “another region” is a portion of the “hologram region.” For purposes of examination the examiner will use “each of the plurality of interference fringes, which selectively diffracts light having a different wavelength, has no discontinuous portions and is continuous inside the hologram region excluding an interface of different portions of the hologram region.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. foreign patent document JP2010/072148, of record, in view of Kojima et al. US Patent 4,603,938, of record.
Regarding claims 1-2 Endo discloses a volume hologram element (title e.g. figure 6 hologram optical element 22) that has a first main surface (e.g. top) and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (e.g. 22b), wherein the volume hologram element has a non-hologram region (e.g. non-hologram region 31) and a hologram region (e.g. hologram region 32) that surrounds the non-hologram region in an in-plane direction (inter alia paragraph [0040] “hologram forming area 32 is formed so as to surround the hologram non-forming area 31 around the optical axis”), a plurality of interference fringes (inter alia paragraph [0041] “the hologram is made up of interference fringes”) each of which selectively diffracts light having a different wavelength are formed in the entire hologram region (inter alia paragraph [0047] “hologram optical element 22 that is compatible with multiple wavelengths”), and each of the plurality of interference fringes, which selectively diffracts light having a different wavelength, has no discontinuous portions and is continuous inside the hologram region excluding an interface of different portions of the hologram region (implicit given paragraph [0041] noting hologram region 32 fringes and non-hologram region 31 does not have fringes, i.e. if fringes are not present it would not be a hologram region, and a single fringe would be “continuous” – otherwise it would be a different fringe, further the overlapping portions of 32 are excluded).
Endo does not disclose a thickness equal to or greater than 10 μm, as required by claim 1; or wherein the thickness is 50 to 800 μm as required by claim 2.
Kojima teaches a similar volume hologram element (title & column 11 lines 10-22 “volume-type phase hologram lens” e.g. figure 15 inline hologram lens IN-L ); and further teaches a thickness equal to or greater than 10 μm (column 11 lines 46-65 discloses IN-L can be 50mm see figure 16) for the purpose of maintaining intensity of the diffracted beam for a greater area (see figure 16 the “d=50mm” curve versus the 5 and 15mm curves). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the volume hologram element as disclosed by Endo to have a thickness equal to or greater than 10 μm and/or having the thickness from 50 to 800 μm as taught by Kojima for the purpose of maintaining intensity of the diffracted beam for a greater area.
Regarding claim 3-5 the combination of Endo as modified by Kojima disclose the volume hologram element according to claims 1 and 2, as set forth above. Endo further discloses wherein, in the hologram region, a slant angle of at least one interference fringe among the plurality of interference fringes monotonously increases from the non-hologram region toward an outer peripheral end of the hologram region (inherent since to achieve required increased diffraction at the periphery, as seen in figure 6, as evidenced by Kojima figure 15 & column 11 lines 10-22 “the grating lines are more widely spaced in the portion closer to the optical axis X, while the grating lines are closer together in the portion closer to the periphery (edge) thereof”) and/or a period of at least one interference fringe among the plurality of interference fringes is monotonously narrowed from the non-hologram region toward the outer peripheral end of the hologram region.
Regarding claims 6-8 the combination of Endo as modified by Kojima disclose the volume hologram element according to claims 1-3, as set forth above. Endo further discloses wherein, in a case 3 where light having a wavelength to be diffracted by at least one interference fringe among the plurality of interference fringes is incident on the first main surface in the hologram region (e.g. top of 22), an angle between a vertical line drawn from a convergent point (e.g. P) where diffracted light diffracted by the at least one interference fringe and emitted from the second main surface (e.g. 22b) converges (see figure 6), to the second main surface and a line segment that connects the convergent point and an outer peripheral end of the hologram region is equal to or greater than 50° (inter alia paragraph [0032] “angle being ±60 degrees”).
Regarding claims 9-12 the combination of Endo as modified by Kojima disclose the volume hologram element according to claim 1-3 and 6, as set forth above. Endo further discloses wherein multiple interference fringes are formed as the plurality of interference fringes region (inter alia paragraph [0047] “hologram optical element 22 that is compatible with multiple wavelengths”), and in a case4 where multiple kinds of light having wavelengths to be selectively diffracted by the respective multiple interference fringes are incident on the first main surface (e.g. top of 22), the multiple kinds of light diffracted by the multiple interference fringes in the hologram region (e.g. 32), respectively, and emitted from the second main surface (e.g. 22b) converge at the same convergent point (e.g. P).
Endo and Kojima do not explicitly disclose or teach that the multiple is three or more. Endo discloses multiple. Multiple is two or more, which covers three or more. It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. In this case one would be motivated to have three wavelengths to achieve a full color device, e.g. red, blue, green. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the multiple kinds/wavelengths of light in the volume hologram element as disclosed by the combination of Endo as modified by Kojima to include at least three kinds/wavelengths of light since multiple includes three or more and one would be motivated to have three wavelengths to achieve a full color device, e.g. red, blue, green.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. foreign patent document JP2010/072148, of record, in view of Kojima et al. US Patent 4,603,938 in further view of Vick US Patent 4,993,790.
Regarding claim 13 Endo further discloses an image display apparatus (e.g. figure 4 projection device 6) comprising: the volume hologram element (e.g. 20) according to claim 1 (as set forth above); and a display element (e.g. display element 3) that emits an image (axiomatic) to an optical system (e.g. projection optical system 4).
Endo and Kojima do not disclose or teach that the optical system includes the volume hologram element.
Vick teaches a similar image display apparatus (title e.g. figures 3-4) including light emit from a display (e.g. light ray 90, 124 or 126) passing through an optical system (e.g. holographic optical element 80 or 100) and a volume hologram element (column 7 lines 46-53 “holographic lens … constructed such that the deflection of various light rays results in a focusing effect … invention uses a volume hologram process with a grating realized as periodic variations in an emulsion”); and further teaches the optical system includes the volume hologram element (e.g. holographic optical element 80 or 100 & column 7 lines 46-53) forth the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display (inter alia column 6 lines 7-9 “screen is relatively thin”). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display apparatus as disclosed by the combination of Endo as modified by Kojima to have the optical system includes the volume hologram element as taught by Vick for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the display.
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 19, 2026
1 Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2 It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case the unclaimed method of making is not the only way to make the claimed structure, as admitted by applicant in paragraph [0020] that discloses that, although it is difficult to make, prior art JP2010-072148A (aka Endo) can make such a structure.
3 It is noted figure 6 shows a case where a point source is diffracted to a collimated the reverse case, i.e. collimated light being focused to a point is inherent given the structure.
4 Ibid.