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 .
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) 11-12 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delboulbe et al. (US 6,246,521 B1) in view of Waldern (WO2010/125337 A2).
Re claim 11, Delboulbe et al. discloses a device comprising: a beam source (20) that emits illumination radiation; a flat deflection hologram (M1, M2) which is arranged at a distance from a surface to be illuminated; and a collimator optical unit (21), at which the illumination radiation is directed and which collimates the illumination radiation and emits the latter as collimated radiation which strikes the deflection hologram (Fig. 2), wherein the deflection hologram is configured such that it deflects the incident collimated radiation in the direction of the surface to be illuminated (claim 20). Delboulbe et al. does not disclose the device wherein the deflection hologram, in the process, acts as a diffuser at the same time.
Waldern discloses a device wherein a deflection hologram, in the process, acts as a diffuser at the same time (page 23, lines 5-7; page 43, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the deflection hologram, in the process, acts as a diffuser at the same time since one would be motivated to reduce laser speckle.
Re claim 12, Delboulbe et al. does not disclose the device wherein a substrate body which is transparent to the illumination radiation is provided, the deflection hologram being formed on the lower side of the substrate body and the upper side of the substrate body being spaced apart from the lower side and being the surface to be illuminated.
Waldern discloses a device wherein a substrate body (10) which is transparent to provided illumination radiation, the deflection hologram (35) being formed on the lower side of the substrate body and the upper side (30) of the substrate body being spaced apart from the lower side and being the surface to be illuminated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein a substrate body which is transparent to the illumination radiation is provided, the deflection hologram being formed on the lower side of the substrate body and the upper side of the substrate body being spaced apart from the lower side and being the surface to be illuminated since one would be motivated guide the light before diffraction.
Re claim 18, Delouble et al. does not disclose the device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input coupling hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o.
Waldern discloses a device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o (page 15, lines 4-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o since one would be motivated to maximize light throughput.
Re claim 19, Delouble et al. discloses the device wherein the deflection hologram (M1, M2) is a reflection hologram.
Re claim 20, Delouble et al. discloses the device wherein the beam source comprises a laser (col. 6, lines 13-16).
Re claim 21, Delouble et al. discloses the device wherein a flat light modulator is arranged in the surface to be illuminated or in a surface conjugate thereto, the light modulator, for image creation purposes, modulating the collimated radiation, which is incident thereon and which was deflected by the deflection hologram, in order to create an image (col. 5, lines 45-55).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delboulbe and Waldern in view of Wreede et al. (US 5,455,693).
Re claim 13, Deloulbe et al. does not disclose the device wherein the substrate body comprises a side face through which the collimated radiation enters the substrate body and then strikes the deflection hologram.
Wreede et al. discloses a device wherein the substrate (21) comprises a side face through which collimated radiation (PB) enters the substrate body and the strikes the deflection hologram (Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the substrate body comprises a side face through which the collimated radiation enters the substrate body and then strikes the deflection hologram to edge couple the light beam into a thicker hologram supporting substrate.
Re claims 14 and 17, Deloulbe et al. does not disclose the device wherein an input coupling transmission hologram which is struck by the collimated radiation is formed on the side face, the input coupling hologram deflecting the incident collimated radiation toward the deflection hologram.
Wreede et al. discloses a device wherein an input coupling transmission hologram (155) which is struck by collimated radiation (PB) is formed on a side face, the input coupling hologram deflecting the incident collimated radiation toward the deflection hologram (153).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein an input coupling transmission hologram which is struck by the collimated radiation is formed on the side face, the input coupling hologram deflecting the incident collimated radiation toward the deflection hologram to implement various combination of reflection and transmission holograms.
Re claims 15, Delouble et al. does not disclose the device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input coupling hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o.
Waldern discloses a device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o (page 15, lines 4-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the collimated radiation strikes the input hologram at an angle of incident greater than 60o since one would be motivated to maximize light throughput.
Re claim 16, Delouble et al. does not disclose the device wherein the input coupling hologram is a transmissive hologram.
Wreede discloses the device wherein the input coupling hologram (155) is a transmission hologram.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the input coupling hologram is a transmission hologram since one would be motivated implement an appropriate or desired wavefront configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither M1 or M2 (or a combination thereof) satisfy the flat deflection hologram elements as alleged, Examiner respectfully disagrees. At least M1, which is flat, deflects the incident collimated radiation in the direction of the surface to be illuminated. As show in Fig. 8, the radiation deflects the radiation in the direction of the display. The radiation may be in the direction of the display in an indirect manner. For instance, even though the radiation is parallel to the surface to be illumination, it is still in the direction of the display since it indirectly travels towards the surface to be illuminated by moving parallel to the surface to be illuminated. At least M2 may also satisfy the claimed flat deflection hologram. In response to Applicant’s argument that M2 cannot be a deflection hologram since M2 is shown in Fig. 2 to contact the display along a right side thereof, Examiner submits that a distance may be between the flat deflection hologram and a surface to be illuminated while also having a contact point. As show in Fig. 2, a distance is between the surface to be illuminated and a flat deflection hologram M2.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the “SBG region 35 and region 30 are both depicted as being on the same side of body 10”, Examiner submits that the lower side of the substrate body may be the side in which the deflection hologram (35) is disposed. The upper side (30) is disposed in a separate portion of the substrate, which may be the upper side. “Upper” and “lower” are relative terms. The claim language does not claim that the upper and lower sides may not be on the same side of the substrate or must be on opposite sides of the substrate. Additionally, any portion on the other side of the substrate (10) may be the “upper side”. In response to Applicant’s argument that modifying Delboulbe based on Waldern makes no sense because if the substrate body is transparent to illumination radiation, then it would not provide any “guide” function, Examiner submits that the substrate body may be transparent along the length direction as shown in Fig. 17 of Waldern, thereby guiding the light to exit the substrate at a specific section of the substrate indicated by reference numeral (35). Therefore, Delboulbe et al. may be modified to obtain a device in which the light is guided to exit at a more specific area of a surface to be illuminated.
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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871