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 § 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.
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 27 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 27 recite the phrase: “the irradiated light transmits the photoreactive material”. It is unclear how light can transmit a material. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “the irradiated light transmits to the photoreactive material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 14, 15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki, US 2018/0045962 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Inagaki discloses: A prism for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, the prism comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a photoreactive material attachment surface (hologram photosensitive material in the form of film is bonded to the prism surface 21d; paragraph [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki); and
and a light reflecting surface inclined at a predetermined angle relative to the photoreactive material attachment surface (prism surface 21c is inclined relative to prism surface 21d and is reflective of light emitted from display element 5; paragraph [0032] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 6, Inagaki discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the prism has a triangular pole shape (a lower portion of prism 21 has a triangular pole shape, as best understood based on Applicant’s description of the prism 10 of Applicant’s FIG. 3 having a “triangular pole shape”; see FIGS. 1, 2, 6 of Inagaki and see paragraph [0094] on pages 31-32 of Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure).
Regarding Claim 7, Inagaki discloses: An apparatus for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, the apparatus comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a prism comprising a photoreactive material attachment surface and a light reflecting surface inclined at a predetermined angle from the photoreactive material attachment surface (hologram photosensitive material in the form of film is bonded to the prism surface 21d, and prism surface 21c is inclined relative to prism surface 21d and is reflective of light emitted from display element 5; paragraphs [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki); and
a light source positioned at an opposite side of the prism with respect to a photoreactive material attached to the photoreactive material attachment surface (display element 5 is positioned at an opposite side of prism 21 from prism surface 21d having the hologram photosensitive material thereon; paragraphs [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki);
the light source being configured to irradiate light toward the photoreactive material (display element 5 irradiates light towards prism surface 21d having the hologram photosensitive material thereon; paragraphs [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Inagaki discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the apparatus is configured to form an interference fringe on the photoreactive material by allowing irradiated light, which is irradiated from the light source and refracted at the interface between air and the photoreactive material, and is then incident into the photoreactive material, to interfere with reflected light in which, when irradiated light transmits the photoreactive material, reflected light is reflected from the light reflecting surface and refracted at the interface between the prism and the photoreactive material, and is incident into the photoreactive material (the prism surface 21d is formed by interference between light beams to thereby form the holographic optical element 23; paragraphs [0021], [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 14, Inagaki discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the photoreactive material attachment surface of the prism has a size equal to a width direction size of the photoreactive material (a width of hologram photosensitive material corresponds to a width of the prism surface 21d; paragraphs [0021], [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 15, Inagaki discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the apparatus is configured to continuously form an interference fringe along any one of a width direction, a length direction, and an oblique direction of the photoreactive material, the oblique direction forming a predetermined angle with the width direction or the length direction (the prism surface 21d is formed by interference between light beams to thereby form the holographic optical element 23, wherein due to the in-plane orientation of the prism surface 21d necessary involves formation along a width, length, or diagonal [oblique] direction; paragraphs [0021], [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding Claim 26, Inagaki discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the diffractive optical element is a holographic optical element (holographic optical element 23; paragraphs [0021], [0032], [0043] and FIGS. 1, 6 of Inagaki).
Claims 1, 7, 12, 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rewitz et al., US 2019/0011880 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Rewitz discloses: A prism for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, the prism comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a photoreactive material attachment surface (input coupling element [prism] 202 having coupling portion 204 with holographic recording medium 208 thereon; Abstract and paragraphs [0027], [0074], [0085], [0089] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz); and
and a light reflecting surface inclined at a predetermined angle relative to the photoreactive material attachment surface (coupling portion 204 is inclined at a predetermined angle to the other surfaces of the prism 202, and wherein such surfaces may be identified as “reflecting surfaces” because light will reflect off such surfaces if the angle of incidence of the light is greater than the critical angle; Abstract and paragraphs [0027], [0074], [0085], [0089] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz; the Office notes that the claim does not affirmatively require that light is actually reflected from any surface, and thus what is required is merely a surface which is capable of reflecting light).
Regarding Claim 7, Rewitz discloses: An apparatus for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, the apparatus comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a prism comprising a photoreactive material attachment surface and a light reflecting surface inclined at a predetermined angle from the photoreactive material attachment surface (input coupling element [prism] 202 having coupling portion 204 with holographic recording medium 208 thereon, wherein the coupling portion 204 is inclined at a predetermined angle to the other surfaces of the prism 202, and wherein such surfaces may be identified as “reflecting surfaces” because light will reflect off such surfaces if the angle of incidence of the light is greater than the critical angle; Abstract and paragraphs [0027], [0074], [0085], [0089] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz; the Office notes that the claim does not affirmatively require that light is actually reflected from any surface, and thus what is required is merely a surface which is capable of reflecting light); and
a light source positioned at an opposite side of the prism with respect to a photoreactive material attached to the photoreactive material attachment surface, the light source being configured to irradiate light toward the photoreactive material (laser light 214, 216 enters prism 202 from an opposite side with respect the holographic recording medium 208 at coupling portion 204; Abstract and paragraphs [0054], [0086], [0087] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz).
Regarding Claim 12, Rewitz discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: further comprising a transport mechanism configured to transport the photoreactive material or the prism while the photoreactive material is attached to the photoreactive material attachment surface of the prism (roller elements 212 for transporting the holographic recording medium 208; paragraphs [0083], [0111] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz).
Regarding Claim 13, Rewitz discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the photoreactive material is in the form of a sheet having a predetermined size in a width direction and extending in a length direction, and the transport mechanism comprises a transport roll configured to continuously transport the sheet (roller elements 212 for transporting the holographic recording medium 208 which may be in the form of a film; paragraphs [0083], [0111] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Rewitz).
Regarding Claim 25, Rewitz discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: further comprising a cutting mechanism configured to cut the photoreactive material into a plurality of diffractive optical elements having a predetermined size along any one of a width direction, a length direction, and an oblique direction of the photoreactive material on which the interference fringe is recorded, the oblique direction forming a predetermined angle with the width direction or the length direction (industrial manufacturing of volume reflection holograms; paragraphs [0017], [0020], [0030], [0078], [0083], [0111] of Rewitz).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki in view of Brown, US 5,895,927.
Regarding Claim 5, Inagaki does not appear to disclose: wherein the light reflecting surface comprises a mirror coating surface or a mirror deposition surface.
Brown is related to Inagaki with respect to prisms for directing light.
Brown teaches: wherein the light reflecting surface comprises a mirror coating surface or a mirror deposition surface (high reflection coatings on the reflecting faces of prisms, such as prisms 44, 46; column 8, lines 3-32 and FIG. 3 of Brown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the use of high reflection coatings as in Brown for the reflective prism surface(s) of Inagaki because the use of such high reflection coatings enhances performance [i.e., increases the amount of light reflected], as taught in column 8, lines 3-32 of Brown.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki in view of Zheng et al., US 2018/0275605 A1.
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Inagaki does not appear to explicitly disclose the single light source configuration of holographic/diffractive optical element formation such that: wherein the apparatus is configured to manufacture a diffractive optical element with only one light source without a master by allowing irradiated light, irradiated from the light source, to interfere with reflected light in which, when irradiated light transmits the photoreactive material, reflected light is reflected from the light reflecting surface.
Zheng is related to Inagaki with respect to holography/diffraction production.
Zheng teaches: wherein the apparatus is configured to manufacture a diffractive optical element with only one light source without a master by allowing irradiated light, irradiated from the light source, to interfere with reflected light in which, when irradiated light transmits the photoreactive material, reflected light is reflected from the light reflecting surface (instead of providing a plurality of identical light sources, the use of one light source for holographic reproduction; paragraph [0064] of Zheng).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the single light source configuration of Zheng for the device of Inagaki because such configuration eliminates the need for multiple light sources, so as to simplify the structure of the holographic reproducing apparatus, as taught in paragraph [0064] of Zheng.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 27 (as best understood; see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above) are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claims 2 and 4, although the prior art discloses various prisms for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
48
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notwithstanding a prior art disclosure of a same angle (e.g., inadvertently though a different method of angle determination), the prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
420
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image3.png
418
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 9 and 11, although the prior art discloses various apparatus for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Notwithstanding a prior art disclosure of a same angle (e.g., inadvertently though a different method of angle determination), the prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
386
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image6.png
392
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 27, as best understood, although the prior art discloses various apparatus for manufacturing a diffractive optical element, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
226
592
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image8.png
51
592
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 3 and 10, these claims depend from Claims 2 and 9, respectively, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872