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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18917739 filed on 10/16/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application KR 10-2023-0149448, filed 11/01/2023 (Korea).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uematsu et al. (hereafter Uematsu, of record, see IDS dated 04/03/2025) JP 2011007967 A (where attached English language translation is referenced).
In regard to independent claim 7, Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) a hologram reading method (i.e. as method for incorporating multiple diffraction grating recording medium and machine reading device, used in securities and authentication, see title abstract, paragraphs [01-05,10-21,24-33, 37-45,47-51,51-66], e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-9) comprising:
irradiating a hologram pattern with a first laser beam of a first wavelength (i.e. irradiating by illumination unit hologram diffraction grating 1 with diffraction micro/minute pixel patterns, with e.g. visible light L1, paragraphs [10-12,14-21, 30-33,39-45,47-48,55-66], Figs. 1-6);
detecting a reflection beam generated by the first laser beam (detecting with camera(s) C, e.g. CCS of the machine reading device the reflected light from 1, paragraphs [11,21, 37-45,62-64], Figs. 5-6);
determining whether necessary information is present in a hologram image generated by the reflection beam (i.e. as machine reading device uses computer with recognition unit E for pattern recognition and determination unit F for determining authenticity of detected shape of motif e.g. A, as 1 is irradiated by e.g. L1, paragraphs [11,14-21, 37-45, 47-48,62-66], Figs. 5-9); and
acquiring the necessary information by irradiating the hologram pattern with a second laser beam having a second wavelength shorter than the first wavelength when the necessary information is not present in the hologram image (i.e. as irradiating 1 with second light e.g. ultraviolet, L2 to detect with cameras C reflected light and using machine reading device with recognition unit E for pattern recognition and determination unit F for determining authenticity of detected shape of motif e.g. that confirms authenticity revealing motif B not visible under L1, but observable when 1 is irradiated by e.g. L2, see e.g. paragraphs [11,14-21, 37-45, 47-48,62-66], Figs. 5-9).
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 1-5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu et al. (hereafter Uematsu, of record, see IDS dated 04/03/2025) JP 2011007967 A (where attached English language translation is referenced) in view of Walter et al. (hereafter Walter) US 20180201043 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) a hologram reading device (i.e. as Multiple diffraction grating recording medium and machine reading device, used in securities and authentication, see title abstract, paragraphs [01-05,10-21,24-33, 37-45,47-51,51-66], e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-9), comprising:
a hologram element having a hologram pattern (i.e. as hologram diffraction grating 1 with diffraction micro/minute pixel pattern, of a motif, paragraphs [10,14-16, 30-33,37-45,47-51,55-66], Figs. 1-4);
a detector configured to detect a reflection beam generated in the hologram pattern (camera(s) C, e.g. CCS of the machine reading device, as C is detecting reflected light from 1, paragraphs [11,21, 37-45,62-64], Figs. 5-6); and
a controller connected to the detector and configured to read information of the hologram pattern using a detection signal of the reflection beam (i.e. as, machine reading device, computer with recognition unit E for pattern recognition, a determination unit F for determining authenticity, display D, paragraphs [11,21, 37-45, 62-66], Figs. 5-9), but Uematsu is silent that the hologram pattern has a width or diameter smaller than 225 nm (i.e. as Uematsu uses hologram diffraction patten size/lattice constants for different light less than a micron down to ultraviolet with grating pitch/spacing down to 333 nm, e.g. 3000 lines/mm, paragraphs [55-61,63,24,27,41,44-45]).
However, Walter teaches in the same field of invention of producing security element (see Figs. 1-14, abstract, e.g. paragraphs [2-3,6-10, 20-23, 36-44,57-58,116-126,129-133,136-146]), and further teaches that hologram pattern has a width or diameter smaller than 225 nm (i.e. as diffractive relief structure, e.g. 61 has period/width/depth as low as 200 nm, e.g. 220 nm , e.g. paragraphs [21-23,57-58,116-126,129-133,136-146], providing particular color impression/effect, optimization of the color contrast, able to eliminate higher order diffraction effects, e.g. paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the hologram diffraction patten of Uematsu pitch or spacing e.g. width, to smaller size according to diffractive relief structure period/width of Walter, in order provide particular color impression and effect, allow optimization of the color contrast, and also allow to eliminate higher order diffraction effects, (see Walter e.g. paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Regarding claim 2, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) that a width of the hologram pattern is greater than 112 nm (i.e. as grating pitch/spacing down to 333 nm, paragraphs [55-61,63,24,27,41,44-45], and in combination with Walter, paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Regarding claim 3, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) further comprising a first laser device configured to irradiate the hologram pattern with a first laser beam (i.e. as laser light source for recording medium 1, as irradiation unit L1,L2, paragraphs [45-48,62-66]).
Regarding claim 4, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) further comprising a second laser device configured to irradiate a second laser beam having a shorter wavelength than the first laser beam (i.e. as laser light source for recording medium 1, as irradiation unit L2 with as shorter wavelength e.g. uv than the first L1 unit, paragraphs [45-48,62-66]).
Regarding claim 5 and 10, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) that the first laser beam has a visible wavelength, and the second laser beam has a ultraviolet (i.e. as multiple diffraction grating pattens in recording medium 1 of the same size are read by corresponding visible wavelength and ultraviolet wavelength, see paragraphs [21,27,4145-47,62-66]). Uematsu and the combination discloses the claimed invention except for first wavelength of 450 nm, and the second wavelength of 225 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt the irradiation/laser light of the first and second irradiation source to include the above wavelengths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the wavelength(s) of the irradiation source is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the particular visible and ultraviolet wavelengths correspond to size of the holographic diffraction pattern (e.g. see pars. [21,27,4145-47,62-64]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize and adjust the visible and ultraviolet wavelengths if first and second irradiation unit to correspond to visible (e.g. blue) wavelength and ultraviolet wavelengths note above, in order to read and authenticate motives of diffraction patterns having similar pitch/size (e.g. see pars. [21,27,4145-47,62-64], and Walter, paragraphs [21,136,141-142]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because selecting appropriate corresponding wavelength for reading of holographic diffraction pattern of corresponding size is a routine activity in holographic authentication and security document design and technology (see e.g. paragraphs [21,27,4145-47,62-64]).
Regarding claim 8, Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9)the hologram pattern (i.e. as hologram diffraction grating 1 with diffraction micro/minute pixel pattern, of a motif, paragraphs [10,14-16, 30-33,37-45,47-51,55-66], Figs. 1-4), but Uematsu is silent that the hologram pattern has a width or diameter smaller than 225 nm (i.e. as Uematsu uses hologram diffraction patten size/lattice constants for different light less than a micron down to ultraviolet with grating pitch/spacing down to 333 nm, e.g. 3000 lines/mm, paragraphs [55-61,63,24,27,41,44-45]).
However, Walter teaches in the same field of invention of producing security element (see Figs. 1-14, abstract, e.g. paragraphs [2-3,6-10, 20-23, 36-44,57-58,116-126,129-133,136-146]), and further teaches that hologram pattern has a width or diameter smaller than 225 nm (i.e. as diffractive relief structure, e.g. 61 has period/width/depth as low as 200 nm, e.g. 220 nm , e.g. paragraphs [21-23,57-58,116-126,129-133,136-146], providing particular color impression/effect, optimization of the color contrast, able to eliminate higher order diffraction effects, e.g. paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the hologram diffraction patten of Uematsu pitch or spacing e.g. width, to smaller size according to diffractive relief structure period/width of Walter, in order provide particular color impression and effect, allow optimization of the color contrast, and also allow to eliminate higher order diffraction effects, (see Walter e.g. paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Regarding claim 9, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) that a width of the hologram pattern is greater than 112 nm (i.e. as grating pitch/spacing down to 333 nm, paragraphs [55-61,63,24,27,41,44-45], and in combination with Walter, paragraphs [21,136,141-142,172]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uematsu et al. (hereafter Uematsu, of record, see IDS dated 04/03/2025) JP 2011007967 A (where attached English language translation is referenced) in view of Walter et al. (hereafter Walter) US 20180201043 A1, and further in view of Cooney, US 20200241473 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the Uematsu-Walter combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Uematsu teaches (see Figs. 1-9) the hologram and the detector (i.e. as hologram diffraction grating 1 with diffraction micro/minute pixel pattern, and camera(s) C, e.g. CCS of the machine reading device, as C is detects reflected light from 1, paragraphs [10,14-16, 21,30-33,37-45,47-51,55-66], Figs. 1-6), but is silent that further comprising a lens between the hologram element and the detector.
However, Cooney teaches in the same field of invention of a method for holographic projector (see Figs. 1-8, title, abstract, e.g. paragraphs [3,4,12,18,27-36,46-54, 74-77]) and further teaches comprising a lens between the hologram element and the detector (i.e. as lens 120 between hologram 140 encoded on single spatial light modulator and detector screen 125, serving as the Fourier transform lens 120 that receives modulated light beam from the 140 and performs a frequency-space transformation to produce a holographic reconstruction at the screen, see e.g. Fig. 1, paragraphs [74-77]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the Multiple diffraction grating recording medium and machine reading device of Uematsu to include a lens between hologram diffraction grating and the detector according to teachings of Cooney having a lens between the hologram and detecting screen, in order to provide lens serving as the Fourier transform lens that receives modulated light beam from the hologram and performs a frequency-space transformation to produce holographic reconstruction at the detector, screen, (see Cooney, paragraphs [74-77]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jurgenmann et al. US 20070174854 A1 also discloses features of instant inventions (see Figs. 1-12 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights