DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on June 2, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 10, and 32.
Claims 3-6, and 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention Group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 32-33 remain pending in this application.
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 32-33 are 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 32 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the volumetric holographic optical element includes a Fourier transform lens HOE and wherein in use the Fourier transform lens HOE is in an object beam” that is not fully supported by the specification of originally filed. The specification fails to give explicitly support for the volumetric holographic optical element utilized for reading data is a Fourier transform lens HOE, (please see Figure 9 of the instant application). Also as demonstrated in Figure 9 of the instant application, for reading the data from a volumetric holographic medium, there is no object beam. Furthermore, one skilled in the art must have the basic idea that while using object beam to read the recorded hologram, only reference beam used to record the hologram will be reproduced, which means “data” will not be read or reproduced.
The specification therefore do not support the amended claim 32 and its dependent claim 33.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the at least one volumetric holographic optical element includes a Fourier transformation lens HOE” this makes the dependent claim 2 which claims the at least one volumetric holographic optical element to be various claimed HOE other than Fourier transformation lens HOE in direct contradiction to the base claim, and therefore makes the scopes of the claim 2 unclear.
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, 2, 7-9 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Pyun et al (US 2014/0055830 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Yamatsu et al (US 2007/0171494 A1) and US patent application publication by Adibi et al (US 2007/0019263 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection. Claim 32 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Pyun et al teaches, with regard to claim 1 and amended claim 32, a holographic recording device that serves as the holographic data storage device for recording data in a hologram recording medium (150, Figure 5) wherein the holographic data storage device includes at least one holographic optical element (234, please see paragraphs [0066]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the hologram recording medium is a volume holographic medium. Yamatsu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic recording apparatus forming a volume hologram memory for recording an interference pattern in an entire volume of a holographic recording medium, (60, Figure 1, please see paragraphs [0006], [0007]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Yamatsu et al to make the hologram recording medium a volume hologram recording medium for the purpose of making the holographic recording device a volume hologram memory.
Pyun et al teaches that the holographic optical element performs a function of Fourier object lens, (please see paragraph [0072]) but it does not teach explicitly that the holographic optical element is a volumetric holographic optical element. Adibi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a volume hologram wherein a Fourier transformation lens is recorded or integrated in the volume hologram, (please see paragraph [0025]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Adibi et al to modify the holographic optical element with Fourier transformation lens function a volume holographic optical element for the benefit of increasing diffraction efficiency. It is known in the art that volume hologram has a better diffraction efficiency.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the at least one volumetric holographic optical element includes a Fourier transformation lens HOE and wherein in use the Fourier transformation lens HOE is in an object beam”.
Pyun et al in light of Adibi et al teaches that the volumetric holographic optical element (234, Figure 5) is a Fourier transformation lens holographic optical element (HOE), (please see paragraph [0072] of Pyun et al and paragraph [0025] of Adibi et al). Pyun et al further teaches that the optical element (234, Figure 5) while in use in the path of the object beam.
Claim 32 has been amended to include the phrase “the volumetric holographic optical element includes a Fourier transform lens HOE wherein in use the Fourier transform lens HOE is in an object beam”. This phrase has been rejected under USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
It is implicitly true that a recorded hologram or holographic data may be reproduced or read by the illuminating the hologram by the object or reference beams used to record the hologram. By using the object beam, reference beam information will be reproduced and by using the reference beam, the object information will be reproduced. According to the recording arrangement taught by Pyun et al, (please see Figure 5), an object beam via the Fourier transform lens holographic optical element (234) may be used to read the hologram recorded on the recording medium (150).
With regard to amended claim 2, the scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite for the reasons set forth above. This claim therefore cannot be further examined since it is in direct contradiction to the amended claim 1.
With regard to claims 7 and 33, Yamatsu et al teaches that the volumetric holographic data storage or the volume hologram memory is configured to record data in the volumetric holographic medium by multiplexing recording methods, including angle multiplexing, phase multiplexing and/or shift or spatial multiplexing methods, (please see paragraph [0007]).
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Adibi et al teaches that the volume hologram could be multiplexed holograms with more than one holograms recorded in recording medium, (please see paragraph [0048]). This means one skilled in the art would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Adibi et al to modify the holographic optical element of Pyun et al to have a first and a second holographic optical elements, each may have a Fourier transformation lens function or other optical function, recorded in the same hologram recording medium for the benefit of providing multiple optical functions in the holographic recording device. With regard to claim 9, as explicitly taught by Yamatsu et al typical holographic multiplexing recording methods including angle multiplexing, phase multiplexing and/or shift or spatial multiplexing methods, (please see paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyun et al, Yamatsu et al and Adibi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kick et al (US 2020/0241474 A1).
Claim 10 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The holographic data storage device taught by Pyun et al in combination with the teachings of Yamatsu et al and Adibi et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
Pyun et al teaches the storge device is configured to record data in the holographic medium (150, Figure 5) by diffracting light with first holographic optical element (234). This reference however does not teach to include a further volumetric holographic optical element to diffract light to the holographic medium.
Kick et al in the same field of endeavor teaches holographic recording apparatus that is comprised an object hologram (2, Figures 1 and 2) for diffracting a light to the hologram recording medium (16) and a reference hologram (3) for diffracting a light to the hologram recording medium, such that the lights from the object hologram and the reference hologram to interfere in the recording medium to record the hologram, (please see paragraphs [0021] to [0024]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kick et al to modify the holographic recording device to use holographic optical elements to generate both the object light and the reference light for recording the hologram for the benefit of generating the recording lights with good accuracy.
Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Utsugi et al (US 2016/0041525 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Yamatsu et al (US 2007/0171949 A1) and US patent issued to Reinhorn et al (PN, 6,185,015).
Claim 32 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Utsugi et al teaches a holographic memory device that serves as the holographic data storage device wherein the device is configured to read data from a holographic medium (1, Figures 7 and 9) by illuminating the holographic medium by diffracting light with a volumetric optical element which may be a reflection-type volume or a transmission-type volume holographic optical element, (307, Figure 7 or 312, Figure 9, please see paragraphs [0068] and [0072]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the holographic memory device or the holographic data storage device is a volumetric data storage device with the holographic medium a volumetric holographic medium.
Yamatsu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic recording apparatus forming a volume hologram memory for recording an interference pattern in an entire volume of a holographic recording medium, (60, Figure 1, please see paragraphs [0006], [0007]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Yamatsu et al to make the hologram memory device or the holographic recording data storage device a volumetric holographic recording data storage device by making the hologram recording medium a volume hologram recording medium for the purpose of increasing the amount of data stored in the device.
Claim 32 has been amended to include the phrase “the volumetric holographic optical element includes a Fourier transform lens HOE wherein in use the Fourier transform lens HOE is in an object beam”. This phrase has been rejected under USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
Utsugi et al does not teach explicitly that the reflection-type volume or transmission-type volume holographic optical element is a Fourier transformation lens HOE. However, the instant application also fails to teach that a Fourier transform lens HOE is utilized in reading the hologram.
Reinhorn et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that holographic lens that performs Fourier transformation may be utilized on read data, (please see the abstract, and Figure 4). It would then have been obvious to alternatively use a Fourier transformation lens holographic optical element to read the hologram data. As shown in Figure 4, Reinhorn et al teaches that the Fourier transform hologram (20, 22, 24 or 26) may be placed in the reading light path.
With regard to claim 33, Utsugi et al teaches that the holographic data may be recorded and therefore read by multiplexing method that includes angle multiplexing method, (please see Figures 7 and 9 and paragraph [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 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 features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights