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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-15 and 17 are pending in the application, claims 9-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 16 has been cancelled.
Amendments to the claim 1, filed on 19 August 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 19 August 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1).
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popkova et al. (US 2019/0101865 A1) in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Popkova discloses a laminated holographic display (ref. #100) comprising a first glass layer (ref. #113), a second glass layer (ref. #115), and an unrecorded/recorded photopolymer film layer (ref. #117) disposed between the first and second glass layers, a polymer film layer (ref. #119) arranged between the photopolymer film layer and the second glass layer, an optically transparent adhesive layer (ref. #121) between the photopolymer film layer and the first glass layer, and that the photopolymer film layer comprises a photopolymer film (ref. #123) which displays a hologram (ref. #111), and a substrate layer (ref. #125) (figure 2 and [0069]-[0073] of Popkova). Popkova further discloses that the polymer film layer has a thickness from 380 to 1500 µm, that the optically transparent adhesive layer has a thickness from 20 to 50 µm, that the substrate layer has a thickness from 35 to 60 µm, and that the photopolymer film has a thickness of from 8 to 18 µm ([0071], [0072], [0074], and [0075] of Popkova). Wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to calculate "t/(t1+t2)" to range from 0.028 [=((18 µm)+(60 µm))/((20 µm)+(380 µm))] to 0.195 [=((18 µm)+(60 µm))/((20 µm)+(380 µm))]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1/10≤t/(t1+t2)≤4/5--. Popkova differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Popkova, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Popkova fails to disclose --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--.
McClintic discloses a laminate article comprising a base layer, and adhesive layer secured to a first surface of the base layer, and a barrier layer secured to a second surface of the base layer, opposite the adhesive layer ([0009] and [0018] of McClintic). McClintic further discloses that the adhesive layer can be discontinuous having a pattern of adhesive areas and adhesive-free areas, and/or an adhesive layer including two or more adhesives having differing properties (i.e., a first adhesive with a relatively strong adhesive strength and a second adhesive with a relatively weak adhesive strength) ([0049] and [0050] of McClintic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Popkova in order to have --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Popkova, from the stand-point of providing initial tack positioning to allow slight movement to allow for positioning prior to the stronger adhesive, and to facilitate air egress ([0049] of McClintic)..
Regarding Claim 17: Popkova in view of McClintic discloses a vehicle comprising the holographic display glass ([0003] of Popkova).
Claims 1-4, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomer et al. (WO 2021/233713 A1) (referred to herein as "Gomer'713") in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Gomer'713 discloses a holographic head-up display comprising a holographic element (ref. #4) disposed between an outer pane (ref. #1) and an inner pane (ref. #2), wherein in one embodiment a first thermoplastic intermediate layer (ref. #3) is disposed between the outer pane and the holographic element, and wherein in another embodiment there is also a second thermoplastic intermediate layer (ref. #5) disposed between the inner pane and the holographic element (figures 1, 3, 4, 8, [0107]-[0110], [0113]-[0117], [0127]-[0128] of Gomer'713). Gomer'713 also discloses that the holographic element can comprise a holographic material (ref. #16) and a first substrate layer (ref. #15), or that the holographic element can comprise the holographic material between the first substrate layer and a second substrate layer (ref. #17) (figures 6 to 7, [0120]-[0122], and [0123]-[0125] of Gomer'713).
Gomer'713 does not explicitly recite that --a thickness of the holographic film is indicated by t, a thickness of the first adhesive layer is indicated by t1, a thickness of the second adhesive layer is indicated by t2, and t, t1, and t2 satisfy an expression: 1/10≤t/(t1+t2)≤4/5-- {instant claim 1} or --wherein t, t1, and t2 satisfy an expression: 1/5≤t/(t1+t2)≤8/15-- {instant claim 2}. However, given that Gomer'713 discloses that the holographic material can have a thickness of 50 to 100 µm, that the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer each have a thickness of 35 µm, and that the first thermoplastic intermediate layer and the second thermoplastic intermediate layer can each have a thickness of 0.38 mm ([0109], [0110], [0116], [0121], [0125], and [0128] of Gomer'713), a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated "t/(t1+t2)" to range from 0.158 [=((35 µm)+(50 µm)+(35 µm))/((380 µm)+(380 µm))] to 0.224 [=((35 µm)+(100 µm)+(35 µm))/((380 µm)+(380 µm))]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1/10≤t/(t1+t2)≤4/5-- {instant claim 1} and --1/5≤t/(t1+t2)≤8/15-- {instant claim 2}. Gomer'713 differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Gomer'713, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Gomer'713 fails to disclose --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--.
McClintic discloses a laminate article comprising a base layer, and adhesive layer secured to a first surface of the base layer, and a barrier layer secured to a second surface of the base layer, opposite the adhesive layer ([0009] and [0018] of McClintic). McClintic further discloses that the adhesive layer can be discontinuous having a pattern of adhesive areas and adhesive-free areas, and/or an adhesive layer including two or more adhesives having differing properties (i.e., a first adhesive with a relatively strong adhesive strength and a second adhesive with a relatively weak adhesive strength) ([0049] and [0050] of McClintic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Gomer'713 in order to have --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Gomer'713, from the stand-point of providing initial tack positioning to allow slight movement to allow for positioning prior to the stronger adhesive, and to facilitate air egress ([0049] of McClintic)..
Regarding Claim 3: Gomer'713 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t1 of the first adhesive layer is 0.38 mm ([0116] of Gomer'713); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.38 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Gomer'713 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t2 of the second adhesive layer is 0.38 mm ([0116] of Gomer'713); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.38 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 7: Gomer'713 in view of McClintic discloses that a base layer is further provided between the holographic film and at least one of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, and a sum of thicknesses of the holographic film and all the base layer is in a range of 85 µm to 170 µm ([0121] and [0125] of Gomer'713); which anticipates the claimed range of --150 µm to 600 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 17: Gomer'713 in view of McClintic discloses a vehicle comprising the holographic display glass ([0001], [0003], and [0014]-[0021] of Gomer'713).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomer et al. (WO 2021/233713 A1) (referred to herein as "Gomer'713") in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 5,726,782 A).
Gomer'713 in view of McClintic is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8: Gomer'713 in view of McClintic discloses that the base layer is provided between the holographic film and the first adhesive layer; the first adhesive layer has a part covering a surface of the base layer facing the first glass; and the base layer is provided between the holographic film and the second adhesive layer; the second adhesive layer has a part covering a surface of the base layer facing the second glass (figures 3 and 4 of Gomer'713)
Gomer'713 in view of McClintic fails to disclose --the first adhesive layer has another part covering an outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering an outer periphery of the holographic film; and the second adhesive layer has another part covering the outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering the outer periphery of the holographic film--.
Kato discloses a hologram (ref. #1) comprising a hologram element (ref. #1A) between two transparent cover plates (ref. #3 and #4), and layers of transparent sealing material (ref. #7A and #7B) disposed between the holographic element and cover plate (ref. #2) (figure 1 and [Col. 3: li. 24 to Col. 4: li. 16] of Kato). Kato also discloses that the holographic element and cover plate can have a reduced dimension so as to be completely surrounded by sealing material (ref. #7) (figure 8 and [Col. 5: li. 6-15] of Kato).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the holographic element of Kato with the holographic display glass of Gomer'713 in view of McClintic in order to have --the first adhesive layer having another part covering an outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering an outer periphery of the holographic film; and the second adhesive layer having another part covering the outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering the outer periphery of the holographic film--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the holographic element of Kato with the holographic display glass of Gomer'713 in view of McClintic, from the stand-point of isolating the from atmosphere the holographic element and base plate by the sealing layer, so that they are protected from moisture of the atmosphere ([Col. 4: li. 11-16] of Kato).
Claims 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomer et al. (WO 2021/245031 A1) (referred to herein as "Gomer'031") in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Gomer'031 discloses a composite disc (ref. #100) comprising a holographic element (ref. #4) disposed between an outer pane (ref. #1) and an inner pane (ref. #2), wherein a first thermoplastic intermediate layer (ref. #3) is disposed between the outer pane and the holographic element, and a second thermoplastic intermediate layer (ref. #5) is disposed between the inner pane and the holographic element (figure 2 and [0042] of Gomer'031).
Gomer'031 does not explicitly recite that --a thickness of the holographic film is indicated by t, a thickness of the first adhesive layer is indicated by t1, a thickness of the second adhesive layer is indicated by t2, and t, t1, and t2 satisfy an expression: 1/10≤t/(t1+t2)≤4/5-- {instant claim 1} or --wherein t, t1, and t2 satisfy an expression: 1/5≤t/(t1+t2)≤8/15-- {instant claim 2}. However, given that Gomer'031 discloses that the holographic material can have a thickness of 5 to 300 µm, and that the first thermoplastic intermediate layer and the second thermoplastic intermediate layer can each have a thickness of 0.030 to 1 mm (30 to 1000 µm) (e.g., 0.76 mm or 0.38 mm) ([0020], [0022], [0027], [0028], and [0057] of Gomer'031), a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated "t/(t1+t2)" to range from 0.0025 [=(5 µm)/((1000 µm)+(1000 µm))] to 5.0 [=(300 µm) /((30 µm)+(30 µm))]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1/10≤t/(t1+t2)≤4/5-- {instant claim 1} and --1/5≤t/(t1+t2)≤8/15-- {instant claim 2}. Gomer'031 differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Gomer'031, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Gomer'031fails to disclose --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--.
McClintic discloses a laminate article comprising a base layer, and adhesive layer secured to a first surface of the base layer, and a barrier layer secured to a second surface of the base layer, opposite the adhesive layer ([0009] and [0018] of McClintic). McClintic further discloses that the adhesive layer can be discontinuous having a pattern of adhesive areas and adhesive-free areas, and/or an adhesive layer including two or more adhesives having differing properties (i.e., a first adhesive with a relatively strong adhesive strength and a second adhesive with a relatively weak adhesive strength) ([0049] and [0050] of McClintic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Gomer'031in order to have --the first adhesive layer and/or the second adhesive layer has a pattern--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the adhesive layer of McClintic with the first and/or second adhesive layer of the holographic display glass disclosed by Gomer'031, from the stand-point of providing initial tack positioning to allow slight movement to allow for positioning prior to the stronger adhesive, and to facilitate air egress ([0049] of McClintic)..
Regarding Claim 3: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t1 of the first adhesive layer is 0.38 mm ([0057] of Gomer'031); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.38 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t2 of the second adhesive layer is 0.38 mm ([0057] of Gomer'031); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.38 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 5: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t1 of the first adhesive layer is 0.76 mm ([0057] of Gomer'031); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.76 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that the thickness t2 of the second adhesive layer can also be 0.76 mm ([0057] of Gomer'031); which anticipates the claimed range of --not less than 0.76 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 7: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that a base layer is further provided between the holographic film and at least one of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, and a sum of thicknesses of the holographic film and all the base layer is in a range of 25 µm [=(20 µm)+(5 µm)] to 600 µm [=(300 µm)+(300 µm)] ([0022] and [0024] of Gomer'031); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range of --150 µm to 600 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 17: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses a vehicle comprising the holographic display glass ([0002] and [0003] of Gomer'031).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomer et al. (WO 2021/245031 A1) (referred to herein as "Gomer'031") in view of McClintic (US 2007/0207284 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 5,726,782 A).
Gomer'031 in view of McClintic is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8: Gomer'031 in view of McClintic discloses that the base layer is provided between the holographic film and the first adhesive layer; the first adhesive layer has a part covering a surface of the base layer facing the first glass; and the base layer is provided between the holographic film and the second adhesive layer; the second adhesive layer has a part covering a surface of the base layer facing the second glass (figures 2 and 3 of Gomer'031)
Gomer'031 in view of McClintic fails to disclose --the first adhesive layer has another part covering an outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering an outer periphery of the holographic film; and the second adhesive layer has another part covering the outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering the outer periphery of the holographic film--.
Kato discloses a hologram (ref. #1) comprising a hologram element (ref. #1A) between two transparent cover plates (ref. #3 and #4), and layers of transparent sealing material (ref. #7A and #7B) disposed between the holographic element and cover plate (ref. #2) (figure 1 and [Col. 3: li. 24 to Col. 4: li. 16] of Kato). Kato also discloses that the holographic element and cover plate can have a reduced dimension so as to be completely surrounded by sealing material (ref. #7) (figure 8 and [Col. 5: li. 6-15] of Kato).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the holographic element of Kato with the holographic display glass of Gomer'031 in view of McClintic in order to have --the first adhesive layer having another part covering an outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering an outer periphery of the holographic film; and the second adhesive layer having another part covering the outer periphery of the base layer, and yet another part covering the outer periphery of the holographic film--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the holographic element of Kato with the holographic display glass of Gomer'031 in view of McClintic, from the stand-point of isolating the from atmosphere the holographic element and base plate by the sealing layer, so that they are protected from moisture of the atmosphere ([Col. 4: li. 11-16] of Kato).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schappert (US 2014/0209231 A1) discloses a film with a discontinuous adhesive layer.
Iwasawa et al. (US 2017/0140676 A1) discloses a label with a discontinuous adhesive layer.
Applicants' 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights