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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and species E in the reply filed on January 28, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office Action has not established serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the search for details of the recording data for the volumetric holographic data storage device for the non-elected invention group is not needed for the examination of the volumetric holographic data storage device. Furthermore, the claims have disclosed 17 different species for the volumetric holographic optical element for invention Group I, that certainly requires serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-6, and 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention Group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking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.
The applicant is respectfully noted that claim indicator for claims 3-6 and 27-30, that are withdrawn from consideration, are incorrect. Please correct them in the subsequent correspondence.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 32-33 remain pending in this application.
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.
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 10 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.
The phrase “record data in the volumetric holographic medium by diffracting light with the first and/or, if present, the second volumetric holographic optical element and diffracting light with the further volumetric optical element to the volumetric holographic medium” recited in claim 10 is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear the conditional phrase “if present the second volumetric holographic optical element” is or is not part of the limitations sought for patent. Also, the phrase “the further volumetric holographic optical element” is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from its based claim.
These indefiniteness make the scopes of the claim 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 and 7-9 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).
Pyun et al teaches 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.
With regard to claim 2, Pyun et al in light of Adibi et al teaches that the volumetric holographic optical element is a Fourier transformation lens holographic optical element (HOE), (please see paragraph [0072] of Pyun et al and paragraph [0025] of Adibi et al).
With regard to claim 7, 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).
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.
With regard to claim 10, it is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above. This claim is therefore examined in the broadest interpretation.
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).
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 (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.
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]).
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