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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on February 13, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-13 and has newly added claims 14-17.
Claims 1-17 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
The phrase “the optical adhesive film” recited in claim 14 is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from its based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3, 6-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Sturdevant (PN. 3,667,946) in view of the US patent issued to Ueda et al (PN. 5,755,919).
Sturdevant teaches, with regard to claim 1, an apparatus for continuous replication of a hologram, (please see Figure 10), that is comprised of a storge hopper (75) with an extruder (73) that together serves as the coating module configured to coat a liquid photopolymerizable material (i.e. serves as the liquid photopolymer, please see column 7) onto a substrate (69) serves as the first carrier film. Sturdevant teaches to include a pre-exposure station (79) that serves as a laminating module configured to form and therefore provide a protective thin film (31, Figure 4) serves as a second carrier film to the first carrier coated with the liquid photopolymer (70) to obtain a photopolymer composite (81, please see Figures 1 and 4). The apparatus further comprises an exposure module that is comprised of a laser light source and a master film (83) serves as the master element comprising a master hologram to be replicated, (please see column 7, lines 58-70). The exposure module is configured to bring the photopolymer composite (81) into optical contact with the master element while the light source is exposing the master hologram onto a region of the photopolymer composite to obtain a replicated hologram.
Sturdevant teaches that the master hologram film (83, Figure 10), is mounted on a curved surface with two rollers to allow the master hologram film to be axially rotated.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Sturdevant teaches that the apparatus further teaches to include a post exposure (91) to expose the exposed copy film (89) or the replicated hologram. It however does not teach explicitly that the post exposure is to cure replicated hologram in the photopolymer composite. Ueda et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a hologram duplication apparatus that comprises a post exposure with Ultraviolet radiation (46’ and 42, Figure 6(a)) to expose the photosensitive film with duplicated hologram (2). Ueda et al teaches that the laminated film (1, please see Figure 6(b), column 4, lines 40-45) comprises UV-curing resin this means the UV radiation in the post exposure component will implicitly cure the replicated or duplicated hologram in the photopolymer composite.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ueda et al to modify the apparatus of the Sturdevant to make the post exposure component a fixing module specifically for curing the replicated hologram.
With regard to claim 2, Sturdevant teaches that the exposure module is configured such that while the photopolymer composite (81, Figure 10) is being conducted through the exposure module a region of the photopolymer composite is exposed temporarily adopts a shape of a lateral surface of the master film or master element (83) and is conducted across the rotating master element configured to move the lateral surface, (please see Figure 10).
With regard to claim 3, Sturdevant teaches that the master element may comprise a transparent support (85, Figure 10) that serves as the main body wherein the master hologram film (83) is applied to a lateral surface of the main body. Ueda et al teaches that the hologram original plate (5, Figure 1(a) or 35, Figure 6(a)) has a main body with original hologram within.
With regard to claim 6, both Sturdevant and Ueda et al references teach master element (83/85 of Sturdevant et al or 35, Figure 6(a) of Ueda et al) has a constant diameter. But they do not teach the diameter is at least 50 mm, however such dimension is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of meeting certain desired application.
With regard to claim 7, both Sturdevant and Ueda et al references teach that the master element is driven by rollers with belt drive, (please see Figure 10 of Sturdevant and Figure 6(a) of Ueda et al).
With regard to claim 8, Ueda et al teaches that the hologram original plate (5) may comprise anti-reflective coated glass, (please see column 3, lines 17-20). This means a main surface or a lateral surfaced of the master element is provided with an anti-reflection coating.
With regard to claim 9, Sturdevant teaches that the coating module is configured to coat the liquid photopolymer unto the first carrier film (69, Figure 10) by using a roller (71) and an extruder (73).
With regard to claim 10, Sturdevant teaches that the first coating module is configured to coat a first carrier film (69, Figure 10) with a liquid photopolymer (via extruder 73). Sturdevant teaches that the second carrier film (31, Figure 4) is applied by preexposure. Sturdevant teaches an apparatus (95, Figure 10), serves as the second coating module, may be provided to provide a liquid photopolymer covering to the exposed film (89, please see column 8, lines 7-10) to provide a protective coating on the exposed film. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply this teaching concerning the second coating module to apply a liquid photopolymer coating in order to modify the apparatus of Sturdevant for the benefit of using an alternative method to apply the second carrier film with a liquid photopolymer.
With regard to claim 11, Sturdevant teaches the apparatus comprises a unwinding station for unwinding the carrier film (69) supplied in a roll form (67, Figure 10).
With regard to claim 12, Sturdevant does not teach explicitly to use a pair of laminating drums to laminate the second carrier film onto the coated carrier film. However, using pair of laminating drums to laminate coated carrier film with a second carrier film that serves as protective film is widely used in the art as demonstrated by Ueda et al wherein laminating roller (38 and 37’, Figure 6(a), column 7 lines 58-65) is used to laminate the protective film (50) to the coated film. It would then have been obvious to use art well known lamination roll to coat the second carrier film or the protective film. With regard to the specific pressure and temperature they are within the operation manner obviously modified by one skilled in the art to achieve the coating process.
With regard to claims 13 and 16-17, Sturdevant teaches to include a dryer (77, Figure 10) that is interposed between the coating module and the lamination module, which implicitly would have the function of degassing. With regard to claims 16-17, Sturdevant the dryer is to extract solvent in the photopolymerizable material which is implicitly heated at certain temperature. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the temperature is in 30 to 300 degrees Celsius, such modification is considered to be obvious to one skilled in the art to operate the apparatus. The drying function may implicitly include vibration to the liquid photopolymerizable film.
With regard to claim 14, Sturdevant does not teach explicitly that the difference in refractive index between the master element and the carrier film is not more than 0.2. Ueda et al teaches to use an index matching fluid (6, Figure 1(a)) interposed between the hologram original plate (5) and the laminated composite include a photopolymer (2) interposed between a pair of carrier films (3 and 4). This would reduce the difference in refractive index of the hologram original plate and the carrier film. It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to either use an index matching fluid or to directly make the difference between the refractive index of the original plate and the carrier film to be small or close to zero for the benefit of reducing the refractive index between the original plate and the carrier film, (please see column 2, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sturdevant and Ueda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Katsumata et al (PN. 6,266,166).
The apparatus for replication of a hologram as taught by Sturdevant in combination with the teachings of Ueda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Sturdevant teaches that the exposure module comprises winding and unwinding rollers (please see Figure 10) for temporary application of the master film (83). This reference however does not teach explicitly that these winding and unwinding rollers would also apply an adhesive film that has a refractive index between the master film and the carrier film. Ueda et al teaches to include an index matching material (6) to be disposed between the hologram original plate and the carrier (please see Figure 1(a)) in order to reduce the difference in refractive index of the plate and the carrier, (please see column 2, lines 1-5). Katsumata et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a hologram arrangement wherein an index matching comprises an adhesive layer may be used to reduce the difference in refractive index, (please see column 14, lines 48-53). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Ueda et al and Katsumata et al to include index matching adhesive film to be also applied by the winding and unwinding rollers for the benefit of also applying an index matching material between the carrier and the master film for the benefit of reducing unwanted reflection at the interface due to the difference in refractive index.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sturdevant and Ueda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Funada et al (PN. 7,245,406).
The apparatus for replication of a hologram as taught by Sturdevant in combination with the teachings of Ueda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 15, these references do not teach explicitly to include a pretreatment station between the unwinding station and the coating station. Funada et al teaches a hologram relief structure wherein before the application of the hologram relief layer (2, Figure 1A) to a substrate (1) or carrier film, the face of the substrate is being pretreated by a plasma treatment, (please see column 14, lines 13-20) in order for an easy adhesion of the hologram relief to the substrate. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Funada et al to modify the apparatus of Sturdevant to include a plasma treatment station between the unwinding station of the carrier or substrate (69) and the coating station (73/75) for the benefit of enhancing the adhesion of the photopolymer coat and the carrier film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights