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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on June 8th, 2022 (DE10 2022 114 381.3). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated December 9th, 2024 and June 23rd, 2026, are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(10, 10’)” in line 2 should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein the optical functions . . . are reduced in a region of the overlap such that the predetermined optical function in the region of the overlap is provided by the two reduced optical functions” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, claim 17 mentions there is “a predetermined optical function” but not that the area elements have optical functions, so there is at least an antecedent basis issue with this part of the claim. It is further unclear what “reduced” means here as no specific optical function is required and so in a case where the optical function is a non-changing parameter it would be impossible to “reduce” it. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the predetermined optical function is provided via a holographic structure of the first and second area elements”.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “the transparent main body” lacks antecedent basis as claim 17 merely recites “a main body”. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the main body, wherein the main body is transparent”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25-28, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa (EP 0828203 A2).
Regarding claim 17, Nishikawa teaches a holographic optics module, comprising:
a main body having a first surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 10(c), and Fig. 12. Figs. 1 and 6 show a first embodiment and Figs. 10(c) and 12 show a second embodiment. Here display structure 10 in Fig. 1 is comprised of the material 28 and films 11’ and 12’ shown in Fig. 6 and the main body corresponds to the combination of these elements, the first surface corresponding to the bottom side of film 12’. In the case of the second embodiment the main body corresponds to the combination of display element 80 and plate 76, and plate 76 comprises the structure shown in Fig. 10(c), and the first surface corresponds to the upper surface of plate 76); and
two or more area elements, each of which comprising a holographic structure (See, e.g., two of regions 1-5 in Fig. 1 and/or films 11’ and 12’ in their entirety in the case of the first embodiment and the a/b zones shown in Fig. 10(c) for the second embodiment)
wherein the two or more area elements are arranged on the first surface of the main body such that they form a coherent area that provides a predetermined optical function (See, e.g., Fig. 1 and note that showing a flower pattern corresponds to a predetermined optical function for the first embodiment and column 14 lines 12-19 which explain the optical function for the second embodiment is to be a hologram reflecting and scattering plate that uses diffusion).
Regarding claim 18, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least two of the two or more area elements are arranged on the first surface without overlap (See, e.g., regions 1 and 2 in Fig. 1 and zones a/b in Fig. 10(c) for the two embodiments respectively).
Regarding claim 20, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least two of the two or more area elements are arranged edge-to-edge on the first surface (See, e.g., regions 4 and 5 in Fig. 1 and zones a/b in Fig. 10(c) for the two embodiments respectively).
Regarding claim 21, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a first area element overlapping with a second area element are arranged on the first surface (See, e.g., Fig. 6 and note when the two area elements are chosen to be films 11’ and 12’ this is the case for the first embodiment).
Regarding claim 22, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical functions provided via a holographic structure of the first and second area elements are reduced in a region of the overlap such that the predetermined optical function in the region of the overlap is provided by the two reduced optical functions (Note given the cited structure above this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above for both embodiments as the cited first/second area elements provide the optical function).
Regarding claim 25, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least two of the two or more area elements have the same shape and size (See, e.g., Figs 6 and 10(c) which show this for the two embodiments).
Regarding claim 26, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the holographic structures of two or more of the area elements each provide the same optical function (See, e.g., Fig. 6 and note that here the two films provide the optical function of “displaying a flower” in the first embodiment).
Regarding claim 27, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the holographic structures of at least two of the two or more of the area elements provide different optical functions (See, e.g., Fig. 6 and note films 11’ and 12’ provide different color optical functions for the overall image in the first embodiment).
Regarding claim 28, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the predetermined optical function comprises a two-dimensional diffuser function (See, e.g., column 14 lines 12-19 which explain the optical function for the second embodiment is to be a hologram reflecting and scattering plate that uses diffusion).
Regarding claim 30, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the main body comprises at least one plate body comprising a two-dimensional front side and a two-dimensional reverse side (See, e.g., Figs. 6 and 10(c) which show this for the two embodiments), and an edge which connects the front side and reverse side and has a smaller areal extent than the front side and reverse side because of the plate-shaped design of the plate body (See, e.g., Figs. 6 and 10(c) which show this for the two embodiments), and wherein the front side or reverse side is the first surface of the main body (See, e.g., Figs. 6 and 10(c) which show this for the two embodiments).
Regarding claim 31, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a holographic display device, comprising: the holographic optics module of claim 17 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 17 above); an image module that creates an image; and an imaging optics unit that reproduces the image created by the image module on the holographic optics module (See, e.g., display element 80 in Fig. 12), which acts as a diffuser surface (See, e.g., column 14 lines 12-19), wherein the reproduced image is perceptible as a real image in the plane of the two or more area elements (Note this is necessarily the case when the device is in operation).
Claim(s) 17, 29, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Opittek et al. (US 3,915,548).
Regarding claim 17, Opittek teaches a holographic optics module, comprising:
a main body having a first surface (See, e.g., holographic lens 20 in Fig. 2 which has these elements); and
two or more area elements, each of which comprising a holographic structure (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows the lens 20 to be comprised of an array of holograms on the face of the main body),
wherein the two or more area elements are arranged on the first surface of the main body such that they form a coherent area that provides a predetermined optical function (Note that insofar as the array of holograms allows for the overall function of a holographic lens this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 29, Opittek teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the predetermined optical function of the coherent area comprises a lens function (Note that as lens 20 is a holographic lens comprised of an array of holograms, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 32, Opittek teaches a method of producing a holographic optics module, comprising:
Producing at least one master hologram having an optical functionality (See, e.g., one of the holograms in the array shown in Fig. 3);
replicating the master hologram(s) for production of two or more area elements, which all have in each case a holographic structure (See, e.g., at least one other holograms in the array shown in Fig. 3),
arranging the two or more area elements on a first surface of a main body such that the two or more area elements form a coherent area that provides a predetermined optical structure (See, e.g., the overall array of holograms that make up holographic lens 20 in Figs. 2-3 and provide a lens function to the device).
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.
Claim(s) 19, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (EP 0828203 A2) in view of Dell’Eva et al. (US 2011/0058240 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a join is formed between at least two or more area elements (See, e.g., Fig. 6 which shows a gap/join between films 11’ and 12’ for the first embodiment). Nishikawa lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the joint is filled with optical cement in order to form a smooth are element surface, and where the optical cement has a refractive index matched to the at least two of the two or more area elements.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Dell’Eva teaches the use of bonding holographic elements via index matched optical cement (See, e.g., paragraph [0091] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nishikawa to have index matched optical cement bonding films 11’ and 12’, as taught by Dell’Eva, for the purpose of having more stability in the device without affecting optical properties.
Regarding claim 23, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein a space in a region of the second area element between the first area element and the first surface, owing to the overlap, is filled with an optical cement having a refractive index matched to the first area element.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Dell’Eva teaches the use of bonding holographic elements via index matched optical cement (See, e.g., paragraph [0091] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nishikawa to have index matched optical cement bonding films 11’ and 12’, as taught by Dell’Eva, for the purpose of having more stability in the device without affecting optical properties.
Regarding claim 24, Nishikawa teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein at least two of the two or more area elements are fixed with optical cement on the first surface of the transparent main body, and wherein the optical cement has a refractive index matched to the at least two of the two or more area elements.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Dell’Eva teaches the use of bonding holographic elements via index matched optical cement (See, e.g., paragraph [0091] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Nishikawa to have index matched optical cement bonding films 11’ and 12’, as taught by Dell’Eva, for the purpose of having more stability in the device without affecting optical properties. (Note that the main body is at least partially transparent, and that with this modification all of the area elements are fixed “on” the cited first surface insofar as they are all in either direct or indirect contact)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
