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 .
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 1, 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molteni et al (U.S.Pat. 5,576,853 A) in view of Morikawa et al (U.S.Pat. 6,656,556).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Molteni discloses a method and apparatus (10) for replicating a hologram in a photosensitive recording medium and comprising substantially all features of the instant claim such as: providing a master element having a substrate body and at least one master hologram (34); applying a light-sensitive composite web (30) to a surface of the master element; exposing the master element in order to replicate the at least one master hologram in the light-sensitive composite web (see col.5, lines 47-58) and thereafter separating/detaching the exposed composite web from the master element and advancing the exposed light sensitive composite web/the exposed recoding medium (see abstract). Molteni further teaches providing an index-matching material (60; 62) at the interface between the master hologram and the photosensitive recording material during holographic exposure in order to provide optical coupling and reduce undesirable reflections associated with an air interface (see figure 1; see col.11, lines 38-52). Molteni also discloses holographic imager may include means for removing the index-matching liquid from one or both sides of the recording medium after exposure and before it is wound on rewind roller (42). Molteni, however, does not teach that the index-matching material is an optical adhesive film. Morikawa teaches an optically transparent pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet comprising an optically transparent film and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (2) and release sheet (3) (see also the accompanying description of Figure 1). Morikawa expressly states that the pressure sensitive layer (2) may be made from inter alia, an acrylic, rubber, urethane or silicone pressure sensitive adhesive. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace the temporally liquid index-matching material employed by Molteni at the interface between the master hologram and photosensitive recording medium with the optically transparent releasable pressure sensitive adhesive sheet taught by Morikawa, thereby providing optical contact between the master element and photosensitive recording medium during exposure while permitting subsequent separation after exposure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because both material perform the known function of providing a transparent optical interface between adjacent optical components while Morikawa’s releasable pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet predictably provides intimate physic contact in a solid sheet form and permits subsequent release.
As to claim 7, Morikawa expressly discloses that the optical transparent pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may comprise an acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive, rubber pressure-sensitive adhesive, urethane pressure-sensitive adhesive or silicone pressure-sensitive adhesive (see col.4, lines 23-37).
As to claim 8, Morikawa discloses the optical adhesive film (2) has a one-layer structure having exactly one adhesive layer (see figure 1).
As to claim 9, Morikawa discloses the optical adhesive film (2) has a carrier layer (3) and has at least one adhesive layer (see figure 2).
As to claim 17, Morikawa discloses where in at least one adhesive layer has a thickness in the range of 10µm to 50µm.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rewitz et al (U.S.Pat. 10,915,066) in view of Morikawa (U.S.Pat. 6,656,556).
With respect to claim 2, Rewitz teaches a method for producing a hologram in a holographic recording medium using a master element, a holographic recoding medium, and an optical input coupling element. Rewitz teaches a device comprising an optical input coupling element 9202), a coupling portion (204) a master element (206), a holographic recording medium (208) and a carrier element (210) as illustrated in figure 2. In particular, Rewitz discloses substantially all features of the instant claim such as: the claimed step of providing the master element having a master hologram; applying a light sensitive holographic recording web thereto; applying an input coupling element such that the recording web is positioned in the optical path between the input coupling element and master element, exposing the master through the input coupling element to replicate the master hologram in the recording medium, and subsequ3ently decoupling/detaching the input coupling element and transporting/detaching the exposed recording medium (see col.5, lines 60-67; see col.10, lines 34-60). Rewitz, however, does not expressly teach that the separate transportable optical coupling film positioned between the input coupling element and holographic recording medium is an optical adhesive film.
Morikawa as discussed, teaches an optically transparent pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet having an optically transparent film and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (see figure 1, optically transparent film (1), pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (2) and release sheet (3)). Morikawa further teaches that the pressure-sensitive adhesive may be a releasable-type pressure-sensitive adhesive, thereby permitting temporary attachment followed by subsequent release. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ Morikawa’ optically transparent releasable pressure-sensitive adhesive material as the transportable coupling film of Rewitz in order to maintain intimate and substantially bubble free optical contact between the input coupling element and holographic recording medium during holographic exposure while permitting subsequent separation of the input coupling element from the recording medium. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification because Rewitz expressly seeks reversible, substantially bubble-free optical coupling and subsequent non-destructive decoupling while Morikawa teaches known optically transparent adhesive sheet specifically capable of temporary/releasable attachment. The modification therefore represents the predictable use of a known releasable optical adhesive material to perform Rewitz’s already described temporary optical coupling function.
Claims 3-6, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molteni (U.S.Pat. 5,576,853) in view of Morikawa (U.S.Pat. 6,656,556) and further in view of Rewitz et al (U.S.Pat. 10,915,066).
As to claim 3, Molteni as modified by Morikawa does not expressly disclose “a refractive index difference between the surface of the master element and the optical adhesive film and/or between the optical adhesive film and a surface of the light-sensitive composite web is nor more 0.2”. Rewitz teaches that an optical coupling element may be refractive-index matched and expressly explains that refractive index matching provides “no refractive index jump, or a refractive index jump which is as small as possible, at the transition to the next medium” (see figure 1, coupling portion 104 and input coupling element 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select the refractive index of the optical adhesive film of the modified Molteni system so as to minimize the refractive-index discontinuity between adjacent optical surfaces, as taught by Rewitz, in order to improve optical coupling and reduce reflections at the interfaces. A refractive-index difference approaching zero necessarily falls within the claimed range of no more than 0.2.
As to claim 4, Rewitz teaches minimizing the refractive-index jump at the transition between adjacent optical media. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select the refractive index of the intervening optical adhesive material to lie between, or sufficiently close to, the respective refractive indices of the adjacent master and recording medium surfaces, since refractive index is a result effective variable affecting reflection losses and optical coupling. Selection of an intermediate index to minimize the index discontinuities at the two interfaces would have constituted routine optimization of the optical coupling taught by Molteni, Morikawa and Rewitz.
As to claim 5, Rewitz teaches that the optical coupling material is preferably sufficiently soft and not permanently adhesive so as to permit subsequent detachment or decoupling, and further teaches that the coupling is releasable by mechanical movement without residue and in a non-destructive manner (see col.5, lines 60-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the adhesive strength or peel force of Morikawa’s releasable optical adhesive sufficiently low to permit such non-destructive and residue-free removal. The precise peel force would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result effective variable, balancing sufficient adhesion for bubble-free optical contact against sufficiently low adhesion to permit subsequent removal. The claimed value of less than 3N/cm would therefore have been an obvious optimization of the known releasable optical coupling.
As to claims 6, 12, and 18 , Rewitz teaches a shear modulus within the range of approximately 1000 Pa to 50 MPa (see col.6, lines 28-30). Although Rewitz characterizes the disclosed modulus as shear modulus rather than Young’s modulus/or tensile strength, as recited in the claims, it would have been obvious to select the elastic properties, including Young’s modulus, of the adhesive material to provide sufficient compliance to conform to the contacted surfaces while retaining sufficient mechanical integrity for handling and removal. Young’s modulus is a conventional measure of material stiffness and would have been routinely selectable by one of ordinary skill from known compliant pressure-sensitive adhesive materials. Accordingly, selection of a Young’s modulus up to 50 MPa or a tensile strength of at least 5 MPa/or 2 MPa represents optimization of the known material-compliance characteristic for the recognized purpose of obtaining conformal, bubble-free, releasable optical contact as intended by Rewitz.
Regarding claim 10, once a carrier-supported removable adhesive film is employed, it would have been obvious to select adhesion between the adhesive layer and its carrier to be greater than adhesion between the adhesive and the temporarily contacted master/web/protective surface. Such differential adhesion predictably causes the adhesive to remain with its carrier during removal rather than transfer to the optical surface. The relative peel strengths constitute result-effective variables affecting clean release and residue prevention, objectives expressly recognized by Rewitz. Selection of the relative peel strengths therefore would have involved routine optimization.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, providing adhesive on both major surfaces of a carrier represents a conventional and predictable alternative to a one-sided carrier-supported adhesive construction when optical contact is desired at both surfaces. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the finite alternatives of coating one or both major surfaces of the carrier and would have selected a two-sided construction when adhesion/coupling to both adjacent components was desired.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that selection of a transparent polymeric carrier from conventional transparent film-forming polymers, including polycarbonate, PET, cellulose acetate/TAC, or PMMA would have constituted a predictable material selection based on the known requirements of optical transparency, flexibility and mechanical support and would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 14, Morikawa teaches the use of a release sheet in association with the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. A removable release/protective film predictably protects the adhesive surface from contamination and unintended adhesion before use. It would therefore have been obvious to remove the protective film immediately before temporarily applying the optical adhesive film between the recording web and master.
As to claim 15, selection of polyethylene, polypropylene, silicone-treated paper or equivalent conventional release-sheet materials would have constituted a predictable material choice based upon the known requirements of flexibility, low adhesion and ready release from a pressure-sensitive adhesive.
As to claim 16, the peel force between the protective film and adhesive layer would necessarily be selected sufficiently low to permit removal of the protective film without disrupting or damaging the under lying adhesive layer. Release peel force therefore constitutes a result-effective variable directly affecting removability. Selection of a workable low peel force, including no more than 0.2 N/cm would have been obtainable through routine optimization of the known release interface.
Regarding claim 20, the thickness of the protective/release film is a result effective variable affecting flexibility, handling, mechanical integrity, and ease of removal. Once the use of a removable protective film is known from Morikawa, one of ordinary skill would have routinely selected its thickness to be sufficiently thin for flexibility and easy peeling while sufficiently thick for handling without tearing. Selection of a workable thickness within 10-50µm would therefore have involved routine optimization absent evidence that the claimed range is critical or yield unexpected results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
9/29/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights