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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 25th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the at least the first optical element and the second optical element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, “the at least the first optical element and the second optical element” is interpreted as “the at least the first optical diffractive element and the second optical diffractive element”.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nabors (WO 0196933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nabors discloses an optical filter system (Figs. 4-6, element 27) comprising:
a first optical diffractive element (31) configured to receive an input beam of light (26) that has an input light wavefront and to diffract said input light wavefront into a first light wavefront (Pg. 8, lines 13-16, “collimated light beam 26 emerging from the autocollimator 20 is incident upon the assembly 28 of holographic diffraction elements, and is diffractively deflected towards the reflector 34. The reflector 34 then retro-reflects this light such that it is incident upon the assembly 28 once again and is diffractively deflected for a second time”, Pg. 8, lines 25-26, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”, as shown in Fig. 4, 31 diffracts 26 into first wavefront R3);
a second optical diffractive element (30) disposed to receive the first light wavefront (26) and to diffract said first light wavefront into a second light wavefront (Pg. 8, lines 25-26, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”, as shown in Fig. 4, 30 diffracts light from 31 into second wavefront R2, Pg. 11, lines 18-20, “the wavelength and angle selectivity of the Bragg holograms may be sufficient to prevent significant cross-talk between the elements, in which case it can become unnecessary to de-activate those elements that are not being adjusted at a given time”); and
a third optical diffractive element (29) positioned to receive the second light wavefront and to diffract said second light wavefront into a third light wavefront (Pg. 8, lines 25-26, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”, as shown in Fig. 4, 29 diffracts light from 30 into second wavefront R1, Pg. 11, lines 18-20, “the wavelength and angle selectivity of the Bragg holograms may be sufficient to prevent significant cross-talk between the elements, in which case it can become unnecessary to de-activate those elements that are not being adjusted at a given time”);
wherein the optical filter system is configured such that, when the input beam of light is a substantially collimated polychromatic beam of light (Pg. 8, lines 13-14, “collimated light beam 26 emerging from the autocollimator 20 is incident upon the assembly 28 of holographic diffraction elements”) containing first light at a first wavelength and second light at a second wavelength (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “the assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum), examiner interprets this to mean light beam 26 comprises at least red, green, and blue colors”), the third light wavefront is also a substantially planar wavefront having a first portion containing the first light and a second portion containing the second light (Pg. 11, lines 18-19, “wavelength and angle selectivity of the Bragg holograms may be sufficient to prevent significant cross-talk between the elements”, examiner interprets this to mean third wavefront R1 contains first and second lights).
Regarding claim 2, Nabors further discloses wherein the first and second portions of the third light wavefront substantially spatially overlap in a first plane transverse to a direction of propagation of the third light wavefront (as shown in Fig. 4, as shown in Fig. 4, R2 and R3 overlap in a transverse plane of R1) and in a second plane substantially parallel to and separated from the first plane (a second plane parallel to the transverse plane of R1 would have R2 and R3 also overlapping),
wherein the third light wavefront represents an output beam of light that is substantially collimated (Pg. 10, lines 16-18, “When autocollimation has been achieved in the manner described above, the cross pattern is located on the element 29 at exactly the position corresponding to the design angle”).
Regarding claim 3, Nabors further discloses wherein the first light wavefront is a light wavefront spatially diverging upon propagation from the first optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 diffracts and diverges incident light into first wavefront R3) while the second light wavefront is a light wavefront that is spatially converging upon propagation from the second optical diffractive element (Pg. 1, lines 6-8, “Holographic diffraction elements are designed so as to deflect light rays that pass therethrough or that are reflected therefrom. As such, these elements can have focusing power in the manner of a conventional lens”, examiner interprets the focusing of the diffractive element to correspond to converging).
Regarding claim 4, Nabors further discloses wherein the second optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the first light wavefront from the first optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the first and second optical diffractive elements (as shown in Fig. 4, first and second diffractive elements 31 and 30 are adjacent to one another) and wherein the third optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the second optical wavefront from the second optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the second and third optical diffractive elements (as shown in Fig. 4, second and third diffractive elements 30 and 29 are adjacent to one another).
Regarding claim 5, Nabors further discloses wherein a first spectral bandwidth of the first optical diffractive element is broader than a second bandwidth of the second optical diffractive element (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the first bandwidth to be red which is broader than blue), and a third spectral bandwidth of the third optical diffractive element is broader than the second bandwidth (examiner interprets the third bandwidth to be green which is broader than blue).
Regarding claim 6, Nabors further discloses wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime)”), the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”), and the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”), and wherein at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(6A) periods of said first and second holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal;
(6B) spectral bandwidths of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal;
(6C) thicknesses of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime)”, examiner interprets this to meant that the thin phase holograms are substantially the same thickness).
Regarding claim 8, Nabors further discloses wherein the first optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a first spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the first frequency to be red), the second optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a second spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the second frequency to be blue), and the third optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a third spatial frequency, and wherein the third spatial frequency is substantially different from the second spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the third frequency to be green, which is different from the frequency of blue).
Regarding claim 9, Nabors further discloses wherein the first optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at wavelengths present in the input beam of light, and/or the second optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at said wavelengths (Pg. 8, lines 25-28, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime) or they can be volume holograms also known as thick or Bragg holograms”).
Regarding claim 10, Nabors further discloses configured such that each of the first (31) and third (29) diffractive optical elements is inclined with respect to an axis along which the input beam of light is made to propagate (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 and 29 are inclined against beam 26 by 90 degrees, Pg. 8, lines 3-6, “The mounting 32 is in turn carried by a mounting stage 33 which can be translated along three orthogonal axes whilst also being rotatable about three orthogonal axes, thereby enabling the assembly 28 to have six degrees of freedom in its overall movement”), and wherein absolute values of first and second angles at which the first and third optical diffractive elements are inclined with respect to the axis are substantially equal (as shown in Fig. 4, 29 and 31 are parallel to one another).
Regarding claim 12, Nabors further discloses an optical imaging system (20) comprising:
the optical filter system (27);
an optical detector (39, examiner interprets 39 to be a human detector, Pg. 2, lines 5-7, “ASIL1s are typically used in optical displays (particularly colour-sequential displays), cameratype imaging applications, or to direct light beams in optical switching or multi-channel detectors”) positioned to receive light transmitted through said optical filter system and to generate an output signal representing a distribution of irradiance of light across the optical detector (Pg. 11, lines 6-7, “Figure 5 shows a typical pattern that will be seen by the observer through the eyepiece lens 40 of the autocollimator 20”, Pg. 8, lines 15-17, “The reflector 34 then retro-reflects this light such that it is incident upon the assembly 28 once again and is diffractively deflected for a second time, back towards the autocollimator 20”); and
a combination of at least a first optical element (plano-concave lens of 25) and a second optical element (bi-convex lens of 25), each of the at least the first optical element and the second optical element dimensioned to change a degree of divergence of light incident thereon (Pg. 16, line 15, “collimation means (25) operative to collimate light”, Pg. 17, line 6, “focussing means (25) operative to focus said return beam”),
wherein the first optical element from the combination is disposed to transmit the light incident thereon towards the first optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 4, the plano-concave lens of 25 transmits light towards element 31), and
wherein the second optical element from the combination is disposed to receive the third light wavefront and to relay it to the optical detector as shown in Fig. 4, the bi-convex lens of 25 transmits light towards the detector 39).
Regarding claim 13, Nabors further discloses wherein the combination of the at least the first optical element (plano-concave lens of 25) and the second optical element (bi-convex lens of 25) is configured as a telescope (as shown in Fig. 4, element 25 in combination with 27 forms a telescope).
Regarding claim 14, Nabors further discloses wherein the at least the first optical diffractive element and the second optical diffractive element are not disposed co-axially with one another (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 and 30 are not co-axial with one another and have different central axes).
Regarding claim 15, Nabors further discloses a method of optically imaging an object (Pg. 8, lines 19-20, “an image of the cruciform slit 22 of the reticle 21 is focused on to the reticle 37, and can be viewed by an observer”), the method comprising:
receiving an input beam of light (26) from the object at the optical filter system (23);
sequentially transmitting light from the input beam of light through each of constituent diffractive optical elements of the optical filter system (element 31-29); and
forming an optical image of the object at an optical detector (39) through a back lens element (40) positioned between the optical filter system and the optical detector (as shown in Fig. 4, element 40 is between detector 39 and filter 27).
Regarding claim 17, Nabors further discloses wherein the sequentially transmitting is devoid of transmitting said light through an optical element that is not a diffractive grating (as shown in Fig. 4, the diffractive elements 31-29 are sequentially arranged with no other optical elements).
Regarding claim 18, Nabors further discloses wherein said forming an optical image of the object includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light (26) through a front lens element (25) positioned between the object (21) and the optical filter system (28).
Regarding claim 19, Nabors further discloses wherein said forming an optical image of the object includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light through an optical telescope (examiner interprets the combination of 20 and 27 to form a telescope) that includes said back lens element (40).
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, 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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabors (WO 0196933 A1) in view of Nakai (US 2002/0080492).
Regarding claim 7, Nabors further discloses wherein the first optical diffractive element (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”) is configured as a first holographic grating having a first thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 has a first thickness), the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic gratings having a second thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 30 has a second thickness), the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffraction grating having a third thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 29 has a third thickness).
Nabors does not specifically disclose wherein the third thickness is smaller than the second thickness.
However Nakai, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the third thickness (Fig. 8, d3 thickness of element 3c) is smaller than the second thickness (d2 thickness of element 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Nabors with the wherein the third thickness is smaller than the second thickness as taught by Nakai, for the purpose of easily molding the diffraction elements ([0088]).
Regarding claim 16, Nabors discloses as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element having a first thickness towards a second constituent diffractive optical element having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness.
However Nakai, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light (Figs. 2 and 8, as shown the light diverges as it passes through) while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element (3a) having a first thickness (d1) towards a second constituent diffractive optical element (3b) having a second thickness (d2) that is greater than the first thickness (as shown in Figs. 2 and 8, d2 is greater than d1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Nabors with the wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element having a first thickness towards a second constituent diffractive optical element having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness as taught by Nakai, for the purpose of increasing diffraction efficiency ([0019]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabors (WO 0196933 A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 2011/0122305).
Regarding claim 11, Nabors discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element (Fig. 4A, element 10) that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element (9, as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 and 9 are substantially identical) and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements (as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 is between second DOE 9 and Third DOE 11) to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 is arranged in a flipped position of what 9 is and thus diffracts at an angle opposite that of 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Nabors with the further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabors (WO 0196933 A1) in view of Coleman (US 8,619,363).
Regarding claim 20, Nabors discloses as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light, propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer.
However Coleman, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light (Col. 6, 54-58, “the light diffracted by the grating into a first plane can be visibly chromatically dispersed such that different wavelengths (or colors, or deviations from white for example) can be seen when viewing the element from different angles in that plane”), propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer (Col. 6, lines 12-13, “total output angular color shift is less than 0.01 over an angular range”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Nabors with the further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light, propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer as taught by Coleman, for the purpose of improving color luminance and reducing wavelength dispersion (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Thiele (US 2020/0166679), Blanche (US 2019/0278011), Presley (US 2009/0220192), Efimov (US 2002/0045104), Scheeline (US 2013/0093936) teach an optical filter system comprising: a first optical diffractive element, a second optical diffractive element, a third optical diffractive element wherein the optical filter system is configured such that, when the input beam of light is a substantially collimated polychromatic beam of light containing first light at a first wavelength and second light at a second wavelength, the third light wavefront is also a substantially planar wavefront having a first portion containing the first light and a second portion containing the second light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 13 March 2026