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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delapp (WO 2022/066461). Reference to Delapp (WO 2022/066461) will be made to Delapp et al. (U.S. 2023/0314810), which is an equivalent English translation of Delapp (WO 2022/066461).
Regarding claim 1, Delapp discloses a volume holographic optical element (32, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0051]) to avoid ghost noise, wherein:
the volume holographic optical element (32, Fig. 9) includes a plurality of volume gratings (72 and 74, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0051, 0053]), which correspond to different incident angle lights, respectively (such as 72 corresponding to incident light of 38 towards the +Y direction, Figs. 4 and 9; page 5, para [0052]; and such as 74 corresponding to incident light of 38 towards the -Y direction, Figs. 4 and 9; page 6, para [0054]), and have vectors (kg1 and kg2, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]) designed with the same component horizontal to an incident interface (kg1 and kg2 each have a same component horizontal to a planar light incident surface of 28 on the X-Y plane, Figs. 4 and 9, page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]) and possess identical grating periods horizontal to the incident surface (72 and 74 each possess identical grating periods p1 and p2, respectively, that are horizontal to the planar light incident surface of 28 on the X-Y plane, Figs. 4 and 9; page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “to avoid ghost noise” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the horizontal components of the grating vectors of all volume gratings are identical) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art reference of Delapp differs from the present invention in the following ways:
Multiplexing method:
Applicant argues that Delapp’s grating vectors projected onto the interface plane have different directions (kg1 and kg2 are antiparallel; kg1 +kg2 = 0) whereas in the present invention the “horizontal components of all grating vectors are identical; all grating periods along the interface are identical.” However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments that the “horizontal components of all grating vectors are identical; all grating periods along the interface are identical” are directed to limitations that are not recited in the claim. The claim as presently recited does not require that the “horizontal components of all grating vectors are identical; all grating periods along the interface are identical” but only require that the plurality of volume gratings “have vectors designed with the same component horizontal to an incident interface and possess identical grating periods horizontal to the incident interface.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot. However, Examiner notes that Delapp discloses the recited limitations of the plurality of volume gratings “have vectors designed with the same component horizontal to an incident interface and possess identical grating periods horizontal to the incident interface” as noted below in the annotated Fig. 9 drawing of Delapp. As annotated below, kg1 and kg2 of Delapp both have the “same component horizontal to the incident interface” along 122 on the X-Y plane of 32 and “possess identical grating periods (since p1=p2) horizontal to the incident interface on the X-Y plane.” Examiner notes that since the periods p1=p2 are arranged on the X-Y plane, they are interpreted as “horizontal to the incident surface” of the X-Y plane since “horizontal to an incident interface” is a broadly recited limitation that does not strictly define what “horizontal” is relative to “an incident interface.”
Annotated Fig. 9 of Delapp
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
543
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Technical Purpose:
Applicant argues that Delapp’s technical purpose is different from that of the present invention. However, as noted above, Applicant is arguing limitations that are solely in the preamble or that are not presently recited in the claim. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Horizontal Grating Vector Components:
Applicant argues that Delapp discloses kg1 and kg2 as necessarily being different (opposite in direction) to satisfy kg1 +kg2 = 0 whereas in the present invention the horizontal grating vectors “must be identical across all volume gratings-a necessary condition for ghost noise suppression.” However, Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not in the body of the claim since the body of the claim does not recite that the horizontal grating vector components “must be identical across all volume gratings-a necessary condition for ghost noise suppression.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot. However, Examiner notes that Delapp discloses all the recited limitations, in particular, “have vectors (kg1 and kg2, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]) designed with the same component horizontal to an incident interface (kg1 and kg2 each have a same component horizontal to a planar light incident surface of 28 on the X-Y plane, Figs. 4 and 9, page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]) and possess identical grating periods horizontal to the incident surface (72 and 74 each possess identical grating periods p1 and p2, respectively, that are horizontal to the planar light incident surface of 28 on the X-Y plane, Figs. 4 and 9; page 5, para [0052]; page 6, para [0054]).”
Therefore, Delapp discloses all the recited limitations as presented above, and the rejection is maintained.
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 PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 H 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights