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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on May 11, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1 and has newly added claims 2-10.
Claims 1-10 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the holographic waveguide being formed of a photosensitive material comprising a refractive index varying spatially according to at least one frequency”. The specification and claims however fail to teach how to make the hologram with refractive index varying spatially to function as a waveguide to partially guide the light from a first zone to a second zone. It is known in the art that a typical waveguide is to guide light by total internally reflecting the light enters the waveguide. While a hologram that has a pattern of spatial variation of refractive index, would diffract the light by the variation pattern. The specification and claims fail make the hologram with “a refractive index varying spatially according to at least one frequency” is able to guide the light within and makes it a waveguide as well.
Claims 2-10 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Fujimoto (PN. 6,222,641).
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-10 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Fujimoto teaches, with regard to claim 1, a holographic system (20, Figures 2, 3, 10A and 10B), that is comprised of a photosensitive film, serves as the holographic waveguide, wherein the holographic waveguide (20) is comprised of two main surfaces. Fujimoto teaches that the holographic waveguide with the photosensitive film comprises a first zone with a first volume phase hologram superimposed on the single layer of the photosensitive film (20, Figure 2) and a second zone with a second volume phase hologram superimposed on the single layer of the photosensitive film, (please see Figure 3). Fujimoto teaches that light incoming on one of the first zone and second zone of the holographic waveguide is at least partially guided toward the other of the first and second zones, (please see Figures 10A and 10B).
In a different embodiment, Fujimoto teaches that the holographic waveguide (20) may be provided to cover at least part of a substrate (110, Figures 12A and 12B) with at least one of the main surface of the holographic waveguide is conformed to a surface of the substrate (110). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings to modify the holographic waveguide to be provided with a substrate for the benefit of allowing the combined holographic waveguide and the substrate to form an optical article that may be suitable for different application requirements.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the holographic waveguide being formed of a photosensitive material comprising a refractive index varying spatially according to at least one frequency”.
Fujimoto teaches that the holographic waveguide is formed of a first and a second volume phase holograms superimposed in a single photosensitive material layer (20, please see column 15, line 34 to column 16, line 44). Fujimoto teaches that the volume phase hologram works as the same principles as Bragg volume gratings wherein the volume phase hologram comprises fringes of layers that with different refractive indices. These fringes are repeated with a specific period or frequency, (please see column 1, lines 41-49).
With regard to newly added claim 2, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the holographic waveguide extends over at least 10% of the surface of the substrate.
With regard to newly added claim 3, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the optical article to comprise a plurality of holographic waveguides.
With regard to newly added claim 7, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to design the first zone extends over at least 50% of a peripheral edge of the holographic waveguide for the benefit of allowing the holographic waveguide fits for desired application requirements.
With regard to newly added claim 9, Fujimoto teaches that the holographic waveguide has a front surface and a rear surface. This reference does not teach that the holographic waveguide has the intended applications. However, one skilled in the art would have been obvious to make the holographic waveguide to direct light from the front surface to be toward exterior environment and the light from the rear surface to be directed to an eye of an observer.
With regard to newly added claim 10, it is implicitly true that the holographic waveguide taught by Fujimoto can be mounted to an element as desired. The intended applications are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent application publication by Rheinwald et al (US2008/0158629).
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-10 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Rheinwald et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a light guide that is comprised of a section (2, Figure 1) comprises a volume hologram formed in a photorefractive material, serves as the photosensitive material, (please see paragraph [0038]]), wherein the volume hologram serves as a holographic waveguide that is part of an optical fiber (1). Rheinwald et al teaches that the volume hologram is a recording of interference pattern of recording lights, (please see Figure 1) in the photorefractive material and it is known in the art that the interferent pattern forms fringes or repeated regions of different refractive indices. The fringes and regions are repeated with a period or frequency.
As shown in Figure 1, Rheinwald et al teaches that the holographic waveguide has two main surfaces and has at least a first and a second zones that are configure so that light incoming on either of the first and second zones is at least partially guided toward the other of the first and second zone.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include a substrate with the holographic waveguide covering at least part of the substrate. Rheinwald et al teaches that the holographic waveguide is a part of the optical fiber which means it is either implicitly true that the holographic waveguide formed in the photorefractive material is disposed on the glass fiber, (please see paragraph [0038]), serves as the substrate, or it is obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the holographic waveguide to be disposed on the glass fiber for the benefit of allowing the holographic waveguide to be part of the optical fiber. The holographic waveguide is conforming to the surface of the optical fiber or substrate.
With regard to newly added claim 2, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the holographic waveguide extends over at least 10% of the surface of the substrate.
With regard to newly added claim 3, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the optical article to comprise a plurality of holographic waveguides.
With regard to newly added claim 7, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to design the first zone extends over at least 50% of a peripheral edge of the holographic waveguide for the benefit of allowing the holographic waveguide fits for desired application requirements.
With regard to newly added claim 8, Rheinwald et al teaches that the holographic waveguide is part of an optical fiber which means the holographic waveguide may be extended parallel to a curved surface of the optical fiber.
With regard to newly added claim 9, Rheinwald et al teaches that the holographic waveguide has a front surface and a rear surface. This reference does not teach that the holographic waveguide has the intended applications. However, one skilled in the art would have been obvious to make the holographic waveguide to direct light from the front surface to be toward exterior environment and the light from the rear surface to be directed to an eye of an observer.
With regard to newly added claim 10, it is implicitly true that the holographic waveguide taught by Rheinwald et al can be mounted to an element as desired. The intended applications are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent application publication by Itou et al (US 2008/0084517 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-10 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Itou et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a light guide (32, Figures 6A and 6B) that is comprised of a volume hologram formed in a photosensitive material, (please see paragraphs [0024], [0053] and [0054]), wherein the volume hologram serves as a holographic waveguide. Itou et al teaches that the volume hologram is a recording of interference pattern of recording lights, (please see Figure 6A) in the photosensitive material and it is known in the art that the interferent pattern forms fringes or repeated regions of different refractive indices. The fringes and regions are repeated with a period or frequency. It is noted that in order for the interference to be recorded in the light guide as a volume hologram via the exposure of the recording light, (please see Figure 6A), the light guide must contain photosensitive material for recording the hologram.
As shown in Figures 6A and 6B, Itou et al teaches that the holographic waveguide has two main surfaces and has at least a first and a second zones that are configure so that light incoming on either of the first and second zones is at least partially guided toward the other of the first and second zone, (please see Figure 6B).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include a substrate with the holographic waveguide covering at least part of the substrate. Itou et al teaches that the volume hologram is used as the light guide and as shown in Figure 6A, it is within general level skilled in the art to make the photosensitive material being supported by a substrate while the volume hologram is being recorded for the benefit of making the recording material be properly supported. The holographic waveguide is therefore conforming to the surface of the optical fiber or substrate.
With regard to newly added claim 2, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the holographic waveguide extends over at least 10% of the surface of the substrate.
With regard to newly added claim 3, it is within general level of skill in the art to design the optical article to comprise a plurality of holographic waveguides.
With regard to newly added claim 4, Itou et al teaches that the holographic waveguide is being utilized to provide illuminating light to the display device (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of holographic waveguides each for providing a specific color of light for the benefit of providing full color display.
With regard to newly added claim 7, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to design the first zone extends over at least 50% of a peripheral edge of the holographic waveguide for the benefit of allowing the holographic waveguide fits for desired application requirements.
With regard to newly added claim 9, Itou et al teaches that the holographic waveguide has a front surface and a rear surface. This reference does not teach that the holographic waveguide has the intended applications. However, one skilled in the art would have been obvious to make the holographic waveguide to direct light from the front surface to be toward exterior environment and the light from the rear surface to be directed to an eye of an observer.
With regard to newly added claim 10, it is implicitly true that the holographic waveguide taught by Itou et al can be mounted to an element as desired. The intended applications are considered to be obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended and newly added claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Fujimoro reference which states that the cited reference discloses to include a multiple volume phase holograms which is therefore different from the instant application to include a holographic waveguide, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated below. The phrase “a holographic waveguide” does not limit to a single hologram, specifically claim 1 recites “the holographic waveguide … comprising a refractive index varying spatially according to at least one frequency” which means that it might have more than one fringes patterns (i.e. different frequency) and therefore more than one holograms. Furthermore, the whole photosensitive film (20, Figures 10A and 10B) of Fujimoto serves as the holographic waveguide for guiding the incoming light on a first zone toward a second zone of the holographic waveguide.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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