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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on January 20, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2015/0002951 A1) in view of Brown et al. (8,830,588).
Regarding claims 16, 24 and 25, Yamazaki discloses a method of manufacturing and an optical waveguide (10 in Fig. 2) for a head up display (paragraphs 0002-0003 describe the optical element being part of a display device for projecting an image to an observer’s eye) comprising:
a waveguide body (11) extending from an input end (“incident area”) to an output end (“emission area”) and configured to guide light by total internal reflection (paragraph 0034) from the input end to the output end, the waveguide body including a first surface (fs1) that extends in a first direction and a second surface (fs2) that is spaced apart from the first surface and extends in the first direction;
an output coupling structure (12 at emission area) attached to the first surface of the waveguide body at the output end, the output coupling structure including:
a first surface (ps) comprising a grating (16b) that is formed in the first surface of the output coupling structure, the grating configured to direct light at a predetermined direction out of the optical waveguide by reflection (see Fig. 2); and
a second surface (fs3) that is opposite the first surface of the output coupling structure, the first surface of the waveguide body being closer to the second surface of the output coupling structure than to the first surface of the output coupling structure (paragraph 0034 describes first surface fs1 of waveguide and second surface fs3 of the output coupling structure separated by a “minute distance”), the second surface of the output coupling structure lacking any grating (see Fig. 2) and extending in the first direction;
wherein there is an air gap (paragraph 0032) between the second surface of the output coupling structure and a portion of the first surface of the waveguide body, the air gap being such that light is coupled from the air gap through the second surface of the output coupling structure to the grating formed on the first surface of the output coupling structure by evanescent wave coupling (paragraph 0034), the air gap between the first surface of the waveguide body and the second surface of the output coupling structure being configured to permit the evanescent wave coupling of the light from the waveguide body into the grating formed in the first surface of the output coupling structure using frustrated total internal reflection (see Fig. 2, the total internal reflection of light is frustrated due to the air gap between fs1 and fs3, allowing a portion of the light to enter output coupling deflector 12), and non-coupled light is to continue propagating in the waveguide body and a portion of that light is then coupled into the grating formed in the first surface of the output coupling structure at the next reflection (see Fig. 2); and
wherein no grating is present on the first surface of the waveguide body that overlaps an entirety of the air gap (see Fig. 2).
Still regarding claims 16, 24 and 25, Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention except for an input coupling device non-overlapping with any grating structure. Brown discloses an optical waveguide for a head up display comprising a waveguide body (40 in Figs. 2-5), an input coupling device (30) attached to the first surface of the waveguide body (column 3, lines 58-60 discloses collimating optics can be integrated with substrate waveguide 40) at the input end of the waveguide body for receiving light and coupling the light initially into the waveguide body through the first surface of the waveguide body (see Fig. 3), and wherein the input coupling device is non-overlapping with any grating structure (see Fig. 3) in a second direction orthogonal to a first direction that the waveguide extends; and an output coupling structure (110) adhesively attached (112) to an outside face of the waveguide body at the output end. Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use an input coupling device non-overlapping with any grating structure as disclosed by Brown in the optical device of Yamazaki for the purpose of allowing for a wide range of collimating optics, increasing the versatility of the optical device.
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki further discloses the distance between the planes fs1 and fs3 can be adjusted or varied to account for different wavelengths and other factors such as the refractive index and the angle of incidence of light. The proposed combination of Yamazaki and Brown teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the air gap has a tapered thickness. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the air gap with a tapered thickness between the output coupling structure and the portion of the face of the waveguide body in order to control the coupling of the output wave.
Regarding claims 18, 28, 30, 33 and 35, Yamazaki discloses the grating (16b) is a saw-tooth grating in Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 19, 20, 27, 31 and 32 , the proposed combination of Yamazaki and Brown teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating an optical coating. However, optical coatings on the faces of optical components are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to use an optical coating on the face of the waveguide body or on a face of the output coupling structure for the purpose of adjusting or enhancing the reflectivity.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Yamazaki and Brown teaches the claimed invention except for the output coupling structure comprising an ultraviolet curing material or an optically transmissive material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the output coupling structure from a UV curing material or an optically transmissive material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 34, Yamazaki discloses after being reflected by the output coupling structure, and before leaving the waveguide, the light passes through the waveguide body substantially perpendicular to the face of the waveguide body to which the output coupling structure is attached in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 26, the proposed combination of Yamazaki and Brown teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating attaching the output coupling structure using optical feedback. However, using optical feedback for active alignment is ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to use optical feedback for the purpose of determining the optimum transmission of the optical signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. However, in order to expedite the prosecution of the application, the relevant portions of Applicant’s remarks will be addressed.
As stated on page 8 of the remarks, during the interview conducted on January 15, 2026, it was agreed the amendment would overcome the prior art rejection made on December 23, 2025. This was due to the fact that the primary reference Yamazaki did not show the amended claimed input coupling device. However, upon closer inspection of the secondary reference Brown, it was discovered that Brown discloses the claimed input coupling device. Specifically, Brown discloses an input coupling device (30) attached to the first surface of the waveguide body (column 3, lines 58-60 discloses collimating optics can be integrated with substrate waveguide 40) at the input end of the waveguide body for receiving light and coupling the light initially into the waveguide body through the first surface of the waveguide body (see Fig. 3), and wherein the input coupling device is non-overlapping with any grating structure (see Fig. 3) in a second direction orthogonal to a first direction that the waveguide extends.
Thus, the combination of Yamazaki and Brown above still presents a prima facie rejection of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights