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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims 1,4,7, in the submission filed 11/07/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 8-20 are acknowledged and accepted.
Drawings
The drawings with 4 Sheets of Figs. 1-5 received on 11/07/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Abstract recites “Exemplary systems that may reduce or eliminate” in line 1 and “An exemplary system includes a display” in line 3 which is implied language.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4,19, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4,19, recite “pixel size of one or more pixels the plurality of pixels” in line 1. This seems to be a typo error It is suggested to be replaced with -- pixel size of one or more pixels in the plurality of pixels--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,6-7,9-10,12-13,15-17,22,23, of U.S. Patent No. 11,449,005 and claims 1-8,10,11,13,15,20, of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,328 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
#18/813936
Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,449,005 (#16/368359) Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12,099,328 (#17/945,968) Claims
1
1, 16
1,17,22
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4,17
5
5
12
6
6
6
7
7
7,23
8
8
13
13
9
4
4
10
9
10,20
11
10,22
11
12
13
13
13,14
15
15
15,16
1,15 and 16
1,15
17
2
2
18
3
3
19
4
5
20
12
6
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from
presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,8,15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2018/0059320).
Consider claim 1, Miller discloses (e.g. figures 2c-2d) a system comprising:
a display screen comprising a plurality of pixels forming a first periodic structure (see figures 2c-2d, the display has a grating pattern 106); and
a frame surrounding at least a portion of the display screen (see figures 2c-2d, the display includes a frame surrounding at least a portion),
the frame comprising a holographic structure (the frame includes edge pattern 202) surrounded by a transparent material (edge material 108, para 58, glue, resin, polymer sealant), the holographic structure comprising having a second periodic structure (the grating pattern and the edge pattern have a micro-nanoscale grating pattern) [0027-0063].
Consider claim 8, Miller discloses a system, wherein the second periodic structure of the holographic structure matches the first periodic structure of the display screen (see figures 2c-2d, the size and shape of the grating pattern 106 and edge pattern match so that the frame conforms to the grating pattern portion) [0057-0063].
Consider claim 15, Miller discloses (e.g. figures 2c-2d) a system comprising:
a display screen comprising a plurality of pixels forming a first periodic structure that comprises a first directionality (see figures 2c-2d, the display has a grating pattern 106); and
a frame surrounding at least a portion of the display screen (see figures 2c-2d, the display includes a frame surrounding at least a portion),
the frame comprising a holographic structure (the frame includes edge pattern 202) surrounded by a transparent material (edge material 108, para 58, glue, resin, polymer sealant), the holographic structure comprising having a second periodic structure that comprises a second directionality (the grating pattern and the edge pattern have a micro-nanoscale grating pattern) [0027-0063].
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 2,10,11,17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2018/0059320) in view of Watanabe (US 2002/0003637) (of record).
Consider claim 2, Miller does not teach that the holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film.
Miller and Watanabe are related as holographic devices.
Watanabe discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film (photosensitive layer 13 is a film is applied to glass substrate 12) [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of the Miller to include the glass substrate and photosensitive film as taught by Watanabe, in order to utilize a hologram that provides good alignment and precision.
Consider claim 10, Miller does not explicitly disclose that the holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film, and the holographic film is positioned in between two or more layers of transparent material that do not include the substrate
Miller and Watanabe are related as holographic devices.
Watanabe discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film (photosensitive layer 13 is a film is applied to glass substrate 12) and the holographic film is positioned in between two or more layers of transparent material (the film 13 is located between glass substrate 26 and layer 19 which is transparent to laser light 29, para 36) [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller to include the glass substrate and photosensitive film as taught by Watanabe, in order to utilize a hologram that provides good alignment and precision.
Consider claim 11, Miller does not explicitly disclose that the holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film and wherein the holographic film is disposed directly on frame without any intervening layers in between the holographic film and the frame.
Miller and Watanabe are related as holographic devices.
Watanabe discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film (photosensitive layer 13 is a film is applied to glass substrate 12) wherein the holographic film is disposed upon the frame (the modified Miller combination would have the holographic film located within the frame without intervening layers along the planar direction) [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller to include the glass substrate and photosensitive film as taught by Watanabe, in order to utilize a hologram that provides good alignment and precision.
Consider claim 17, Miller does not teach that the holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film.
Miller and Watanabe are related as holographic devices.
Watanabe discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises a substrate coated with a holographic film (photosensitive layer 13 is a film is applied to glass substrate 12) [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of the Miller to include the glass substrate and photosensitive film as taught by Watanabe, in order to utilize a hologram that provides good alignment and precision.
Claims 3,9,18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2018/0059320) in view of Javid (GB 2542455) (of record).
Consider claim 3, Miller does not explicitly disclose that the holographic structure comprises only holographic glass.
Miller and Javid are related as holographic devices.
Javid discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises only holographic glass (a hologram can be etched into a glass sheet) [page 13, lines 13-18].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller to include the glass substrate as taught by Javid, in order to utilize a hologram that provides unique/separate holographic images when it is appropriately illuminated.
Consider claim 9, Miller discloses the system of claim 3.
Miler does not explicitly disclose that the second periodic structure is formed by one of laser etching, ablation and deposition
Miller and Javid are related as holographic devices.
Javid discloses (e.g. figure 3) that the second periodic structure is formed by one of laser etching, ablation and deposition (etching can be used to form the hologram) [page 13, lines 13-18 of Javid].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the process of making the device of the Miller to include the process as taught by Javid, in order to utilize a common method for a hologram that provides unique/separate holographic images when it is appropriately illuminated.
The preceding claim is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process; see In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Consider claim 18, Miller does not explicitly disclose that the holographic structure comprises only holographic glass.
Miller and Javid are related as holographic devices.
Javid discloses (e.g. figure 3) a holographic structure comprises only holographic glass (a hologram can be etched into a glass sheet) [page 13, lines 13-18].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller to include the glass substrate as taught by Javid, in order to utilize a hologram that provides unique/separate holographic images when it is appropriately illuminated.
Claim(s) 4-7,12-14,16,19,20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2018/0059320) in view of Aizawa (US 2017/0185038) (of record).
Consider claim 4, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
the first pitch of the first periodic structure includes a pixel size of one or more pixels the plurality of pixels, and wherein the second pitch of the second periodic structure is less than the pixel size by 0.5 percent to 20 percent.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 3, 6B-8) a system comprising positioning generation hologram area (210, positioning hologram generation display area) which can be divided into an arbitrary number of sections. [0041-0045, 0057-0062, 0073].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the hologram area as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Thus, Aizawa recognizes the pitch of the positioning hologram area as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of sections within the positioning generation hologram area to achieve a relationship between the first pixel size and the second pitch that is within the claimed range. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have a relationship of the first pixel size and second pitch be within the claimed range in order to utilize routine experimentation to determine the workable ranges of the relative sizes of the pixel size and pitch.
Consider claim 5, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
the plurality of pixels each have a first shape, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures having the first shape.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the plurality of pixels each have a first shape, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures having the first shape (see figures 6B-7, the panel is shown to be rectangular so that the pixels would also be rectangular. The positioning hologram generation areas are similarly shown to be rectangular) [0041-0048 of Aizawa].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixel shape as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Consider claim 6, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
wherein the plurality of pixels are each oriented in a first direction, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures oriented in the first direction Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) wherein the plurality of pixels are each oriented in a first direction, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures oriented in the first direction (see figure 6B-7, the pixels and structures of the hologram positioning generation area are oriented in the x-y plane) [0041-0045].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixel orientation as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Consider claim 7, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
that the first pitch of the first periodic structure is within 0.5 percent to 2 percent of the second pitch of the second periodic structure.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the positioning generation hologram area can be divided into an arbitrary number of sections.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixels as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Thus, Aizawa recognizes the pitch of the positioning hologram area as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of sections within the positioning generation hologram area to achieve a relationship between the first pixel size and the second pitch that is within the claimed range. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of the modified Miller reference, to have a relationship of the first pixel size and second pitch be within the claimed range in order to utilize routine experimentation to determine the workable ranges of the relative sizes of the pixel size and pitch.
Consider claim 12, Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein a periodicity of elements of the first periodic structure match the periodicity of the elements of the second periodic structure.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the positioning generation hologram area can be divided into an arbitrary number of sections.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixels as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Thus, Aizawa recognizes the pitch of the positioning hologram area as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of sections within the positioning generation hologram area to achieve a relationship between the first pixel size and the second pitch that is within the claimed range. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of the modified Miller reference, to have a relationship of the first pixel size and second pitch be within the claimed range in order to utilize routine experimentation to determine the workable ranges of the relative sizes of the pixel size and pitch.
Consider claims 13,14, Miller discloses that
the first periodic structure comprises a first periodic feature (see figures 2c-2d, the display has a grating pattern 106) that comprises a first directionality and the second periodic structure comprises a second periodic feature (the frame includes edge pattern 202) that comprises a second directionality (the grating pattern and the edge pattern have a micro-nanoscale grating pattern with different directionality as in fig 2c-d) [0027-0063].
Miller does not explicitly disclose that the first directionality matches the second directionality.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the first periodic structure comprises a first periodic feature that comprises a first directionality and the second periodic structure comprises a second periodic feature that comprises a second directionality., and the first directionality matches the second directionality (see figure 6B-7, the pixels and structures of the hologram positioning generation area are oriented in the x-y plane) [0041-0045].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixel orientation as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Consider claim 16, Miller does not explicitly disclose that the first directionality matches the second directionality.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the first periodic structure comprises a first periodic feature that comprises a first directionality and the second periodic structure comprises a second periodic feature that comprises a second directionality., and the first directionality matches the second directionality (see figure 6B-7, the pixels and structures of the hologram positioning generation area are oriented in the x-y plane) [0041-0045].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixel orientation as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Consider claim 19, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
the first pitch of the first periodic structure includes a pixel size of one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels, and wherein the second pitch of the second periodic structure is less than the pixel size by 0.5 percent to 20 percent.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 3, 6B-8) a system comprising positioning generation hologram area (210, positioning hologram generation display area) which can be divided into an arbitrary number of sections. [0041-0045, 0057-0062, 0073].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the hologram area as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Thus, Aizawa recognizes the pitch of the positioning hologram area as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of sections within the positioning generation hologram area to achieve a relationship between the first pixel size and the second pitch that is within the claimed range. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have a relationship of the first pixel size and second pitch be within the claimed range in order to utilize routine experimentation to determine the workable ranges of the relative sizes of the pixel size and pitch.
Consider claim 20, Miller does not explicitly disclose that
the plurality of pixels each have a first shape, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures having the first shape.
Miller and Aizawa are related as display devices.
Aizawa discloses (e.g. figures 6B-7) that the plurality of pixels each have a first shape, and wherein the holographic structure comprises a plurality of structures having the first shape (see figures 6B-7, the panel is shown to be rectangular so that the pixels would also be rectangular. The positioning hologram generation areas are similarly shown to be rectangular) [0041-0048 of Aizawa].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Miller, to have the pixel shape as taught by Aizawa, in order to form an inconspicuous hologram that could be used for positioning purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ichikawa et al. (US 5,737,040) discloses a LCD apparatus which employ a color hologram filter with a defined pitch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights