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 September 1, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 2, and 4.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claims 1-4 str 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.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to include the phrase “from among a plurality of different generation methods prepared in advance” it is indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be “prepared in advance”. Specifically, it is not clear if the hologram data has been computed by the plurality of different generation methods in advance or simply to have a list of possible different generation methods in mind to be “determined”. The scopes of the claims therefore are confusing since it is not clear if the “plurality of different generation methods prepared in advance” is or is not part of the limitations sought for patent or not. Furthermore, it is not clear how does this “plurality of different generation methods prepared in advance” relate to the rest components of the hologram data generation system.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type of claim.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “determine, from a plurality of different generation method prepared in advance, a generation method” and claim 4 has been amended to include “determining, from a plurality of different generation method prepared in advance, a generation method”, that are confusing and indefinite since the specification and claims fail to objectively define what is included or excluded by the term “generation methods”.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article “Three-dimensional holographic parallel focusing with feedback control femtosecond laser process” by Zhang et al (Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151(2022) 106884, pages 1-7) in view of the patent issued to Saito et al (PN. 5,668,648).
The claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraphs for the reasons set forth above. The claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Zhang et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, teaches a hologram data generation system for generating hologram data for realizing a hologram, (please see Figure 1). The hologram is for light modulation in a spatial light modulator (SLM) for hologram data generating system. Zhang et al teaches that the hologram data generation system is comprised of an image sensor to acquire target information indicating an emitted light intensity distribution (or intensity profile) that is a target of emitted light from a hologram. Zhang et al teaches that a generation method or a computer generation hologram (CGH) calculation software is used for generating the hologram data according to a type of intensity distribution or intensity profile indicated by the acquired target information. Zhang et al further teaches that the hologram data from the acquired target information is generated by the generation method, (please see Figure 1).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the hologram data generation system comprising a computer device”.
Zhang et al teaches that computer generation hologram calculation software is used to generate the computer generate hologram data, (please see Figure 1) which implicitly means that a computer device or computing device is included to carry out the calculation using the software.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to include the phrase “determine, from among a plurality of different generation methods prepared in advance”.
This reference does not teach explicitly that the computing device is configured to determine a generation method, from a plurality of different generation methods prepared in advance. But since the reference indeed teaches to use a method or CGH calculation software that serves as the determined generation method which implicitly implies or obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the method used. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that the generation method used implicitly has to be determined from a plurality of different generation methods known in the art. As taught by Saito et al specifically that a plurality of different algorithms or algorithm software programs (or different generation methods) can be stored in a computer memory (PROM 76, Figures 1-3) for a hologram data generation system and method so that one of the algorithms which is optimum for generating the hologram data is used or determined, (please see column 6, line 37 to column 7, line 13). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Saito et al to specifically prepare a plurality of different algorithms software programs in advance to store in a computer memory so that a specific one can be determined from the list to optimally generate the hologram data.
With regard to claim 2, Zhang et al teaches that the intensity profile or the intensity distribution indicated by the acquired target information is being used in a CGH calculation software, served as the determined generation method, to generate the hologram data according to the intensity profile or distribution.
With regard to claim 3, Zhang et al teaches that the type of intensity distribution may be a discrete distribution, (please see Figure 4).
With regard to claim 4, Zhang et al also teaches a hologram data generation method that is an operation method of the hologram data generation system for generating hologram data for realizing a hologram used for light modulation in a spatial light modulator (SLM, Figure 1). Zhang et al teaches that the method comprises the step of acquiring target information indicating an emitted light intensity distribution or intensity profile that is a target of emitted light from a hologram, the step of providing a CGH calculation software serves as a generation method to generate the hologram data according to a type of the intensity distribution indicated by the acquired target information and a step of generating the hologram data from the acquired target information by the generation method, (please see Figure 1).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claim. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the method comprises a step of determining a generation method, but since the instant application and claim fail disclose how to determine the generation method and the reference indeed teaches to use a method or CGH calculation software that serves as the determined generation method which implicitly implies or obvious to one skilled in the art to include a determining step of the generation method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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