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 Species A, claim 1, in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 25, 2026.
Claim 1 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 1 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 1 recites the paragraph “a maximum diffraction efficiency in a wavelength band of not less than 380 nm and not more than 780 nm in wavelength distribution of first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element with respect to diffraction efficiency and wavelength distribution of negative first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element with respect to diffraction efficiency is 20% or higher, and a maximum diffraction efficiency in the wavelength band of not less than 380 nm and not more than 780 nm in wavelength distribution of first-order diffracted light resulting from transmission through the factor element with respect to diffraction efficiency and wavelength distribution of negative first-order diffracted light resulting from transmission through the factor element with respect to diffraction efficiency is 10% or lower” that is confusing and indefinite.
Specifically, it is not clear if the 20% or higher is referred to the maximum diffraction efficiency “of the negative first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element” or referred to “maximum diffraction efficiency of the first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element with respect to diffraction efficiency and wavelength distribution of negative first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element, i.e. the total first order diffraction efficiency with respect (i.e. a ratio) to the negative first order diffraction efficiency of the light reflected from the factor element.
It is also not clear if the 10% or lower is referred to the maximum diffraction efficiency of “first negative first-order diffracted light resulting from transmission through the factor element” or “first-order diffracted light resulting from transmission through the factor element with respect (a ratio) to diffraction efficiency and wavelength distribution of negative first-order diffracted light resulting from transmission through the factor element”, i.e. the total diffraction efficiency of the first order diffracted light from transmission to the negative first-order diffracted light from transmission.
For the purpose of examination, this phase is being interpreted as the 20% or higher is referred to the negative first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element or the or the 10% or lower is referred to negative first-order diffracted fight resulting from transmission from the factor element.
However, proper clarification and correction are required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent application publication by Drinkwater (US 2005/0270604 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Mossberg et al (US 2009/0116790 A1) and US patent application publication by Eto et al (UD 2007/0070477 A1).
The claim is under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reason set forth above. The claim is examined in the broadest interpretation in light the statement in the paragraph above.
Drinkwater teaches a diffractive device that serves as the light modulation element including a diffractive structure (30, Figures 2 and 3), serves as the factor element, that reproduces a light image by modulating a phase of incident light. The diffractive structure has an uneven surface, (please see Figures 2 and 3), that reproduces a positive first-order diffracted light and a negative first-order diffracted light resulting from reflection from the factor element. Drinkwater teaches that the diffractive structure is to reflect diffracted light in visible wavelength range, which is between 380 nm and 780 nm, (please see Figure 2, paragraph [0087]).
Drinkwater teaches that the intensity or the diffraction efficiency for the diffracted lights between positive and negative diffractive orders may be non-symmetric to enhance the brightness of the diffracted light, (please see paragraph [0012]).
Mossberg et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a high efficiency optical grating that is capable of diffract incident light to reproduce only the negative first-order diffracted light with an efficiency of 90%, (please see Figure 1C, paragraphs [0077] to [0080]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mossberg et al to modify the diffractive structure to have negative first order diffracted light with efficient greater than 20% and to make eliminate the positive first order diffracted light with (i.e. with efficiency less than 10%), for the benefit of making the diffractive structure to have desired optical property.
These references also do not teach explicitly that the diffractive structure is a Fourier transform hologram. Eto et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a hologram observation sheet that is comprised of Fourier transform hologram that is capable of transforming a light beam incident from a point light source to a desired optical image, (please see the abstract). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the diffractive structure a Fourier transform hologram for the benefit of allowing the image to be reproduced from a point light source. As demonstrated by Mossberg et al, a reflective diffractive structure may be provided by placing a reflector (103, Figure 1C) next to a transmission type diffractive structure, (please see Figure 1C).
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