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 1-12 and 13-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrases “determine whether or not first diffraction efficiency that is different from a final diffraction efficiency is reached” and “upon a determination that the first diffraction efficiency is reached” are really confusing, since the claims are drawn to a method, it is not clear what are the logic of these two claim steps. It is not clear how they are related or should be ordered. The scopes of claims are unclear.
Claim 13 recites the phrases “whether the first diffraction efficiency is reached” and “whether the final diffraction efficiency is reached” that are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how do the first diffraction efficiency relate to the final diffraction efficiency. The scopes of the claims are unclear.
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) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Statutory Invention Registration by Lanteigne (H841).
Lanteigne teaches, with regard to claim 1, a method for monitoring of holograms that serves as the method for production and real-time measurement of a hologram, wherein the method comprises a step of directing a reference beam and an object beam, (please see Figure 1) toward a holographic recording medium or material (22) for formation of a hologram including a diffraction grating in the holographic material or medium, a step of blocking the reference beam or the object beam to prevent the corresponding beam to reach the holographic material for at least a portion time during which diffraction grating is being formed, (please see Figure 2). Upon the blockage of one of the reference or object beams, measuring a power level of a diffracted beam associated the reference or the object beams that is not being blocked, (please see Figures 1 and 2).
Lanteigne teaches that the duration of the operation mode is ended when the measured diffraction efficiency of the hologram reaches a predetermined level as measured by the photodetector (34) with data acquisition device (36, please see column 3, line 41 to column 4, line 3). This means the measured diffraction efficiency by the photodetector and the data acquisition device served as the first diffraction efficiency. Lanteigne teaches that the duration of the modes, that includes blocking or otherwise disabling one of the reference or the object bean while allowing the other of the reference or the object beams to illuminate the holographic material with a particular duty cycle, (please see Figure 2) to enable the further measurement of the diffraction efficiency, can be ended when the measured diffraction efficiency of the hologram (i.e. the first diffraction efficiency) reaches a predetermined level serves as the final diffraction efficiency, (please see column 4, lines 1-3). This means a step of determining whether the first (or measured) diffraction efficiency reaches the predetermined or final diffraction efficiency or not and if not the duration is continued until the final diffraction efficiency is reached.
Lanteigne teaches that the intensity of the diffracted beam is detected by the photodetector to determine the diffraction efficiency, It is known in the power of the light beam is proportional to intensity of the light beam. This means the measuring of the intensity of the light beam is the same or may be obviously modified or converted by one skilled in the art to measure the diffraction efficiency of the diffracted beam by measuring the power of the beam as alternatively way of determining the diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claim 2, it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to make the final or predetermined diffraction efficiency to be either saturates or a maximum value.
With regard to claim 3, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to make the predetermined diffraction efficiency as the stoppage point power value and the measured diffraction efficiency is compared with the stoppage point power value or the predetermined diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claim 4, it is also obvious to one skilled in the art to select a stoppage point power value that is non-linearly related to the final diffraction efficiency as a stoppage point for the benefit of allowing first diffraction efficiency or measure diffraction efficiency to be compared with for the purpose of allowing certain indication of the measurement process be achieved.
With regard to claim 5, Lanteigne teaches that in the dark mode the particular duty cycle is less than 50% having an on-time that is less than an off-time each cycle.
With regard to claim 6, this reference does not teach explicitly that the duty cycle is 10% or less, however such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of allowing the diffraction efficiency may be measured accordingly.
With regard to claim 7, Lanteigne teaches to include shutters in the object beam path and the reference beam path (24, and 26, Figure 1) which means that it is obvious for one skilled in the art to alternatively that upon the determination that the first diffraction efficiency is reached, blocking or otherwise disabling the object beam while allowing to illuminate the holographic material with a particular duty cycle may a achieved.
With regard to claim 8, Lanteigne teaches that the shutters (24 and 26, Figure 1) may comprise rotating beam chopper (please see column 2, lines 26-30) which means that the blocking one of the reference or the object beams includes operating the chopper that periodically blocks a path of one of the reference beam or the object beam.
With regard to claim 9, Lanteigne teaches that the blocking one of the reference or the object beams includes operating a shutter (24 or 26) that intermittently or periodically blocks a path of one of the reference beam or the object beam.
With regard to claim 11, Lanteigne teaches to include a shutter (24, Figure 1) in the object beam path and a shutter (26) in the reference beam path. This means the blocking of the reference or the object beams while the diffraction grating is being formed consists of either blocking the reference beam (i.e. close the shutter 26) or blocking the object beam (i.e. close the shutter 24) as designed or selected by one skilled one since this only requires the operation of the shutter. The power level or the intensity of the diffracted beam consists of measuring the power level of the diffracted object beam followed.
With regard to claim 12, Lanteigne teaches that the duration of the mode can be ended when the measured diffraction efficiency or the first diffraction efficiency of the hologram reaches a predetermined level or the final diffraction efficiency, (please see column 3, line 42 to column 4, line 3). This implicitly means or obvious by one skilled in the art to include the iteration steps including (a) allowing both the reference beam and the object beam to illuminate the holographic material to continue formation of the diffraction grating, (b) subsequent to illumination of the holographic material by both the reference and object beams for a duration of time, blocking one of the reference or the object beams, (c) making one or more additional power level measurements associated with the reference or the object beam that is not being blocked, (d) making another determination as to whether the first diffraction efficiency is reached, and upon determining that the first diffraction efficiency is not reached, repeating operations (a) to (d) until the first diffraction efficiency is reached, for the benefit of allowing the predetermined or final diffraction efficiency is reached.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United states Statutory Invention Registration by Lanteigne (H841).
Lanteigne teaches, with regard to claim 13, a system for exposure and monitoring of holograms that serves as the system for production and real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram, wherein the system is comprised of a first optical component (20, Figure) positioned to receive a reference beam and direct the reference beam towards a location of the holographic material or medium (22) for formation of a diffraction grating thereon, a second optical component (18) positioned to receive an object beam and direct the object beam towards a location of the holographic material or medium for formation of the diffraction grating thereon, a shutter or chopper (24 or 26, please see column 2, line 25-29) positioned to block a path of one of the reference or the object beams to prevent the corresponding beam to reach the holographic material for at least a portion of time during which the diffraction grating is being formed, a photodetector (34) positioned to receive a diffracted beam associated with the reference or the object beam that is not being blocked. Lanteigne teaches that the detector is a photodetector (34, please see column 2, line 36) which implicitly means that the detector would generate electric signals indicative of one or more power levels associated with the reference or the object beam that is incident on the detector. Lanteigne teaches to further include a shutter control (28) and a data acquisition (36) that may comprise a computer, (please see column 2, lines 42-47). The computer may include a processor and a memory wherein an instructions may be stored thereon.
Lanteigne also teaches a procedure for production and real-time measurement of the diffraction efficiency of the hologram and the procedure or the mode of operation would end when the measured diffraction efficiency (serves as the first diffraction efficiency) reaches a predetermined level (serves as the final diffraction efficiency, please see column 4, lines 1-3).
This means either implicitly or obvious by one skilled in the art to make the procedure comprises a step of determining, based on information associated with the electrical signals indicative of one or more power levels whether a first diffraction efficiency is reached, and upon a determination that the first diffraction efficiency is reached, cause one of the reference or the object beams to be blocked while allowing the other of the reference or the object beams to illuminate the holographic material with a particular duty cycle, and determine, based on measurements of diffraction efficiency using the reference beam or the object beam that is not blocked or otherwise disabled, whether a final diffraction efficiency is reached.
With regard to claim 14, Lanteigne teaches that the data acquisition includes the computer could be set to control the shutter control (28) so that the duty cycle or a frequency operation of the chopper or the shutter may be controlled.
With regard to claim 16, Lanteigne teaches to include choppers or shutters (24 and 26, Figure 1) that is positioned in the object beam path and the reference beam path respectively, so that either the object beam or the reference beam is blocked and the photodetector may be positioned to detect the diffracted beam when the reference beam is blocked.
With regard to claim 17, Lanteigne teaches that at least one laser light source configured to generate the reference beam and the object beam, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 18, Lanteigne teaches that the first optical component and the second optical component each comprises a mirror (20 and 18, Figure 1).
With regard to claim 20, Lanteigne teaches that the system is configured to illuminate the holographic material using a non-total internal reflection configuration.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanteigne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Hayase et al (US 2005/0068593 A1).
The method for exposure and monitoring of holograms that serves as the method for production and real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram taught by Lanteigne as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 10, Lanteigne teaches to include a shutter (24, Figure 1) in the object beam path and a shutter (26) in the reference beam path. This means the blocking of the reference or the object beams while the diffraction grating is being formed consists of either blocking the reference beam (i.e. close the shutter 26) or blocking the object beam (i.e. close the shutter 24) as designed or selected by one skilled one since this only requires the operation of the shutter. The power level or the intensity of the diffracted beam consists of measuring the power level of the diffracted object beam followed.
This reference however does not teach the power level or the diffraction efficiency of the diffracted reference beam may be measured. Hayase et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for detecting diffraction efficiency of a hologram where detectors (14 and 15, Figure 2) may be provided to detect the diffraction efficiency of the diffracted beam either when the reference beam is blocked by the shutter (9) or the diffracted beam when the object beam is blocked by the shutter (8). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hayase et al to also include an additional detector so that both the diffracted beams, when the object beam is blocked or the reference beam is blocked, be detected.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanteigne as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Hayase et al (US 2005/0068593 A1).
The system for exposure and monitoring of holograms that serves as the system for production and real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram taught by Lanteigne as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 15, Lanteigne teaches to include choppers or shutters (24 and 26, Figure 1) that is positioned in the object beam path and the reference beam path respectively, so that either the object beam or the reference beam is blocked and the photodetector may be positioned to detect the diffracted beam from the object beam when the reference beam is blocked. But this reference does not teach a detector to detect the diffracted beam from the reference beam when the object beam is blocked. Hayase et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for detecting diffraction efficiency of a hologram where detectors (14 and 15, Figure 2) may be provided to detect the diffraction efficiency of the diffracted beam either when the reference beam is blocked by the shutter (9) or the diffracted beam when the object beam is blocked by the shutter (8). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hayase et al to also include an additional detector so that both the diffracted beams, when the object beam is blocked or the reference beam is blocked, be detected.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanteigne as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Reinhorn et al (PN. 6,172,778).
The system for exposure and monitoring of holograms that serves as the system for production and real-time measurement of diffraction efficiency of a hologram taught by Lanteigne as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 19 and 21, this reference does not teach explicitly that the system is configured to illuminate the holographic material using a total internal reflection configuration and does not include at least one prism.
Reinhorn et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for forming hologram wherein at least one prism (52, Figure 3B) is included so that a total internal reflection configuration is included to record the hologram in the holographic medium (60). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Reinhorn et al to modify the system to alternatively include a total internal reflection configuration for the benefit of allowing different configuration to form the hologram.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US patent issued to Kawano et al (PN. 7,236,277) teaches a method and system for measuring diffraction efficiency of the hologram.
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 900AM-430PM.
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
