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 without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 27, 2026.
Claims 1-13 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 11 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 11 recites the phrase “either the inert material or the polymer is replaced by another material after curing of the nanostructure” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what is considered to be the “another material” and it is not clear how could polymer be replace after the holographic recording (inside the polymer) and curing of the polymer.
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) 1-3, 6-7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Lane et al (US 2020/0354594 A1) in view of US patent application publication by Hnatovsky et al (US 2021/0318488 A1) and US patent application publication by Klug et al (US 2017/0010488 A1).
Lane et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a method for recording a diffractive structure, (please see Figure 7), wherein the method comprises a step of providing a holographic recording mixture comprises a monomer, a photoinitiator and an organic polymer host matrix that serves as an inert material, (please see paragraphs [0003], [0168] and [0248]), the step of depositing a layer of the holographic recording mixture (750) onto a substrate (730, Figure 7), and the step of exposing the holographic recording mixture to a holographic recording beam (722, 742, please see Figure 7) to form a microstructure comprises a Bragg grating of polymer regions (i.e. polymerized by the exposure) and inert material regions within the mixture layer, (please see paragraphs [0157] and [0168]). Lane et al further teaches that the method comprises a step of forming a covering layer for providing a smooth surface, (please see paragraph [0161]) that may serve as the surface conditioning optical layer on top of the holographic recording mixture.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Lane et al does not teach explicitly that the microstructure of the Bragg grating is a nanostructure. Hnatovsky et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a Bragg grating may comprise a nanostructure, (please see paragraph [0046]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the Bragg grating recorded in the method taught by Lane et al to have a nanometer dimension to make it a nanostructure.
Lane et al teaches to form the covering layer for providing a smooth surface, (please see paragraph [0161]). Klug et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a planarization layer (2000d, Figure 9A-IV) that may serves as a surface conditioning that is depositing on top of the Bragg grating structure to reduce surface roughness of the Bragg grating structure. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Klug et al to provide a planarization layer on top of the Bragg grating structure for the benefit of providing planar surface and reducing surface roughness.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Lane et al in light of Klug et al teaches that the surface conditioning optical layer comprises the planarization layer (2000d, Figure 9A-IV of Klug et al) would reduce the surface roughness.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Lane et al teaches that an antireflective coating may be provided on the article including the holographic recording, (please see paragraph [0157]). In light of the teachings of Klug et al it is within general level skill in the art to make the surface conditioning layer to provide a surface for supporting the antireflective coating for the benefit of allowing the antireflective coating to be properly deposited on the article including the holographic recording.
With regard to claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite, the claim can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. Since it is not clear what are the “another material” which makes the examination impossible.
With regard to claim 12, Lane et al teaches that the holographic recoding medium of the layer of the mixture may be placed between a substrate and a top substrate, (please see paragraph [0157]). It is within general level skilled in the art to remove the top substrate after exposing the mixture to the holographic recording beam for the benefit of making the article including the holographic recording without the top substrate.
With regard to claim 13, Lane et al in light of the Klug et al the surface-conditioning optical layer or the planarization layer has a bottom surface which conforms to a top surface of the Bragg grating structure and has a planar top surface, (please see 2000d, Figure 9A-IV).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al, Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Hannan et al (PN. 4,221,465).
The method for recording holographic diffractive structure taught by Lane et al in combination with the teachings of Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, these references do not teach explicitly that the surface conditioning layer comprises refractive index matching. However, it is known in the art to use index matching layer on top of a grating structure, also serves as a surface conditioning layer, to match the refractive indices to reduce unwanted reflection at the interface of the layers, (such reflection is known in the art as Fresnel reflection). Such is explicitly demonstrated by Hannan et al wherein an index match adhesive (206, Figure 3b) is placed on top of a diffractive structure (112) for the benefit of matching refractive indices and reducing unwanted reflection at the interface of the layers. Such modification by one skilled in the art therefore is considered obvious for the benefit stated above.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al, Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kamijima et al (US 2009/0010001 A1).
The method for recording holographic diffractive structure taught by Lane et al in combination with the teachings of Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Lane et al teaches that that the method is to record a volume hologram with a Bragg grating. These references however do not teach explicitly that the volume holographic Bragg grating is has a volume phase structure. Kamijima et al teaches a Bragg grating may be a volume phase grating, (please see paragraph [0138]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kamijima et al to make the volume holographic Bragg grating be a volume phase grating for the benefit of allowing the Bragg grating has a desired properties.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al, Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Peredereeva et al (US 20110027697 A1).
The method for recording holographic diffractive structure taught by Lane et al in combination with the teachings of Hnatovsky et al and Klug et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 10, these references do not teach explicitly that the inert material is a liquid. Peredereeva et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic recording medium that is comprised of a mixture of a monomer, a liquid inert binder and a photoinitiation system, (please see paragraph [0068]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Peredereeva et al to modify the inert material to include a liquid inert material for the benefit of using art well-known inert material, for it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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