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 § 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 1-6 are 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites “a method for producing an optical element” but fails to positively recite sufficient steps for producing the optical element and fails to clearly identify the relationship between the recited hologram recording medium subjected to multiple recording exposures and the claimed optical element. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed method are unclear.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al (U.S.Pat. 7,572,555) in view of Hiraoka et al (US 2018/0217312 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, Takizawa discloses a hologram recording material and hologram recording method wherein a hologram medium having a recording layer containing a polymerization compound and a photopolymerization initiator for recording interference fringes by refractive index modulation (see col.10, lines 5-35). Takizawa further teaches holographic recording using multiplex recording techniques including angular multiplexing, phase multiplexing, wavelength multiplexing and shift multiplexing (see col.9-10). Takizawa additionally teaches multiplex recording of 50 times or more and preferably 10 times or more. is subjected to multiple recording exposure of a hologram (see col.16, lines 17-26). Takizawa further teaches exposure parameters used during hologram recording, including exposure intensity, exposure duration and exposure amount. In particular, Takizawa teaches use of a laser intensity of approximately 8mW/cm2 and exposure time ranging from 01.1 to 400 seconds (see col.99, lines 28-41).
As to claim 3, Takizawa discloses the thickness of the recording layer is 100 mu.m or larger or 500 mu.m or larger (see col.5, lines 3-10).
As to claim 5, Takizawa discloses a total number of multiplexes is more than 100 times.
Thus, Takizawa discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims. Takizawa additionally teaches exposure intensity and exposure parameters used during holographic recording but does not expressly disclose the average exposure intensity is 6mW/cm2 or more based on the formular: average exposure intensity=total exposure energy/total recording cycle time, as recited in the claims. Hiraoka teaches holographic optical element recording and optimization of holographic recording conditions to improve diffraction efficiency and performance of holographic optical elements (see paragraph [0170]). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize known exposure parameters, including exposure intensity and exposure duration, in a multiplex hologram recoding process in order to achieve desired diffraction efficiency, recording quality, and recording speed, as suggested by Hiraoka. It is the Examiner’s position that the recited average exposure intensity defined by formula (1) merely represents a mathematical relationship derived from known exposure parameters including exposure intensity, exposure duration, and multiple exposure events. Discovering or calculating an optimum value of a result-effective variable ordinarily falls within the routine skill of the art. Therefore, selecting recording conditions resulting in a calculated average exposure intensity of 6mW/cm2 or greater would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 has been found allowable since the prior arts of record do not disclose or suggest controlling an interval time between successive hologram recording exposure to be at least 0.2 seconds in the context of the claimed multiple recording exposure process.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miki et al (U.S.Pat. 8,758,960) and Hara et al (U.S.Pat. 12,371,521) discloses methods for producing optical elements and have been cited for technical background.
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
6/8/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights