DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an interview with applicant’s representatives on March 31, 2026. Claims 11-18, 24-26, 32-39, 47, 50-61 are pending.
As noted in the interview summary, this office action is a reissuance of a Non-final rejections since newly added claims are not rejected on merit. Claim 51 is rejected as new matter below. Dependent claims 52 and 61 being depending on claim 51 will also be considered new matter as these dependent claims carry the lack of support from the disclosure as claim 51. New grounds of rejection for newly added claims 53-61 are included herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 6, 2025 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 51, 52, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 appears to read on the embodiment shown in Figs. 7A, 7B, and 8.
A waveguide assembly comprising a multiplicity of waveguides, each waveguide comprising:
an incoupling optical element (1007) configured to couple light into the waveguide (905) to propagate in the waveguide via total internal reflection, the light comprising a first wavelength and a second wavelength different from the first wavelength;
a light distributing element (1011) comprising a wavelength selective region (924), and configured to couple the incoupled light at the first wavelength out of the wavelength selective region;
wherein the wavelength selective region (924) is configured to receive incoupled light from the incoupling optical element (1007), and to attenuate the incoupled light at the second wavelength, wherein the wavelength selective region comprises a dye, a tint, a stain or any combination thereof; and
an outcoupling optical element (1009) configured to receive the incoupled light at the first wavelength from the light distributing element and to couple light at the first wavelength out of the waveguide.
PNG
media_image1.png
244
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 51. (New) The waveguide assembly of Claim 11, further comprising a multiplicity of image injection devices, each image injection device configured to inject light carrying image information into a corresponding waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides.
Newly added claim 51 appears to be drawn the embodiment shown in Fig. 7A. However, the embodiment of Fig. 7A discloses “a display 700 including a waveguide 905 that includes an incoupling optical element 1007, a light distributing element 1011, and an outcoupling optical element 1009.” The corresponding waveguide (905) incoming light is sent from single incoupling element (1011) as shown in Fig. 7A. The newly added claims 51-52 appear to be combining the two embodiments of Fig. 4 and Figs. 7A and 8 without clearly and distinctly showing them in a single embodiment in the figures and the Specification does not clearly and distinctly discussed to demonstrate how the two embodiments are structurally and materially designed and function. Fig. 4 appears to show the image injection devices as optical fibers from optical cables and Fig. 7A and 8 incoupling optical element (1007) appears to be a singular planar waveguide source. The disclosure “the incoming incident light to the waveguide 905 can be projected from an image injection device (such as one of the image injection devices 200, 2020, 204, 206, 208 illustrated in FIG. 4)” (Spec, Para [0071]) is insufficient disclosure for demonstrating how the two embodiments are structurally and materially designed and function. Therefore, the examiner considers the newly added claims 51-52 to be new matter.
For examination purposes, the examiner shall consider the original embodiment claimed of a singular waveguide as shown in Figs. 7A, 7B, and 8.
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 11-15, 17-18, 24-26, 32-36, 38-39, 47, and 50, 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2014/0140654 A1, hereinafter “Brown”) in view of Levola (US 2010/0165465 A1, herein “Levola”).
Regarding claims 11 and 47, Brown discloses a waveguide (shown in Fig. 3) comprising:
an incoupling optical element (IIN 2, Input Image Node, 141) configured to couple light into the waveguide (DIGI-I 1, 130) to propagate in the waveguide (130) via total internal reflection, the light comprising a first wavelength and a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Fig. 16 shows Digilens for displaying colors RBG);
a light distributing element (HBE-I 1, Horizontal Beam Expander, 135) comprising a wavelength selective region, and configured to couple the incoupled light at the first wavelength out of the wavelength selective region (HBE in color head-mount displays employs separate waveguides to cover red and blue/green wavelengths, Para [0153]);
wherein the wavelength selective region is configured to receive incoupled light from the incoupling optical element, and to attenuate the incoupled light at the second wavelength (e.g., red waveguide is the “first wavelength” that would attenuate the “second wavelength” or blue/green light, Para [0153]),
an outcoupling optical element (DIGI-O 1) configured to receive the incoupled light at the first wavelength from the light distributing element to the couple light at the first wavelength out of the waveguide.
However, Brown does not disclose the wavelength selective region comprises a dye, a tint, a stain, or any combination thereof.
Levola teaches an exit pupil expander system (10) using absorbing tint through a volume of the substrates (10-1, 10-2) and through a thickness of selected areas. The absorbing tint in the substrate (10-2) is optimized for absorbing (attenuating) the wavelength component (22) while being transparent to the wavelength component (20), and the absorbing tint in the substrate (10-2) is optimized for absorbing the wavelength component (20) while being transparent to the wavelength component (22). Thus, each of the substrate (10-2) and (10-2) provides only one wavelength component (Para [0059] and Figs. 2a and 2b). The wavelength selective region as taught by Levola is a color filter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize beam expander employing tint to separate the wavelength components would be interchangeable with the beam expander in Brown’s display. One would be motivated to employ a tint for separating the wavelength components to provide an economical display versus a robust color display which employs volume phase grating in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal mixture.
Claims 12-14. Brown discloses the waveguide is part of a wearable display system configured to provide an augmented reality experience for the user and is mounted on the head of the user via a helmet (Para [0141]-[0142], and [0150]).
Claim 15. Brown discloses the waveguide is configured to expand the beam in two orthogonal directions (Para [0221]).
Claims 17-18. Brown discloses the incoupling optical element is a switchable input grating and the outcoupling optical element comprises a non-switching output grating (Fig. 3).
Claim 24. The light distributing element (HBE) comprises the electrically switchable material (Para [0139]).
Claim 25. Brown teaches the diffractive elements of the incoupling and outcoupling optical element is the wavelength selective region (DIGI-I1, DIGI-O1).
Claim 26. Brown teaches the light distributing element (HBE) comprises a coupling grating at its input end and alternating SBG (switchable Bragg Grating) stripes of two different prescription (Para [0123], see also [0139]-[0140]).
Claim 32. Brown discloses a waveguide (Fig. 3): comprising
an incoupling optical element (IIN 2, input Image node, 141) configured to couple light into the waveguide (DIGI-I 1, 130) via total internal reflection, the light comprising a first wavelength and a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Fig. 16 shows Digilens for displaying colors RBG);
a light distributing element (HBE-I 1, Horizontal Beam Expander, 135) configured to relay and expand light from the incoupling optical element (IIN) along a first axis;
a wavelength attenuator (Switchable Bragg Grating is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture , Para [0005-0007]); and
an outcoupling optical element (DIGI-O1) configured to receive light from the light distributing element to the couple light at the first wavelength out of the waveguide (DIGI-I1) thereby expanding light from the light distributing element along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (See ray trace in Fig. 10).
However, Brown does not disclose a wavelength attenuator comprising tint, dye, or stain, or any combination thereof.
Levola teaches an exit pupil expander system (10) including wavelength attenuators, each on substrate (10-1, 10-2). The tint is configured to perform wavelength selection (absorb one wavelength component while reflect a second wavelength component) by reducing an amount of incoupled light at the second wavelength from the incoupling optical element that reaches the light distribution element (through a thickness of the substrate 10-1, 10-2) relative to incoupled light at the first wavelength from the incoupling optical element that reaches the light distribution element (substrate 10-1, 10-2). See Para [0059] and Figs. 2a and 2b.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize beam expander employing tint to separate the wavelength components would be interchangeable with the beam expander in Brown’s display. One would be motivated to employ a tint for separating the wavelength components to provide an economical display versus a robust color display which employs volume phase grating in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal mixture.
Claims 33-35. Brown discloses the waveguide is part of a wearable display system configured to provide an augmented reality experience for the user and is mounted on the head of the user via a helmet (Para [0141]-[0142], and [0150]).
Claim 36. Brown discloses the waveguide is configured to expand the beam in two orthogonal directions (Para [0221]).
Claims 38-39. Brown discloses the incoupling optical element is a switchable input grating and the outcoupling optical element comprises a non-switching output grating (DIGI-O1, Para [0137]).
Claim 50. Brown in view of Levola teach the incoupling optical element comprises two or more optical elements (Input Image Node IIN contains microdisplays for input image data and laser illumination modules, collimation and relay optics waveguide links and grating devices (Brown: Para [0009]).
Claim 53. Brown further teaches each waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides (HBE waveguides 171, 172) each comprising 3 stacked gratings (Fig. 10). Each waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides is configured to output light to form an image corresponding to a particular depth plane. Fig. 10 illustrates the “multiplicity of waveguides” as a visual guide to understand the “depth plane” which is a virtual depth plane as described by Specification. Brown teaches the gratings HBEI2A-HBEI2C as switchable bragg gratings (SBG), but Brown further equates switchable bragg gratings to be functionally equivalent with holographic polymer-dispersed liquid crystals (HPDLC) (Para [00134]). See Paras [0005]-[0008] for detail disclosure in sequentially switching on and off of the holographic elements very rapidly such as a switchable bragg grating in forming the holographic image, which implies the virtual “depth plane” as recited in claim 53. See Specification (Para [0031]-[0032]).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 16 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Levola as applied to claim 11 and claim 32 above, and further in view of Sasaki (JP-2009128565-A, herein “Sasaki”, first cited by Examiner on 8/4/2023).
Brown in view of Levola disclose the invention of claim 11 and 32, but Brown in view of Levola do not teach the waveguide is configured to provide light to a user with an amount of divergence, such that an image content appears to the user at a corresponding depth.
Sasaki teaches a HUD unit having a display device comprising of a light beam generation unit (110), image formation unit (160) and the divergence angle control unit (170) which are configured to project a beam into the viewing eye (105) for enhancing the perception of depth (Fig. 5 and fourth full paragraph in translation on page 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the display device of Sasaki would be modifiable to the HUD display as exemplified in the wearable display device of Brown. One would be motivated to enhance the depth perception in virtual reality display wherein the depth perception increases the realism of the virtual display by replicating the parallax effect (See TECH-SOLUTION and ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS sections of Sasaki).
Claims 54-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Levola as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Schowengerdt (WO-2015081313-A1, herein “Schowengerdt”).
Brown in view of Levola teach the invention of claim 53, but Brown in view of Levola do not teach each and every limitations of claims 54-60, which shall be enumerated below.
Brown in view of Levola do not teach:
A multiplicity of lenses, each lens of the multiplicity of lenses positioned between adjacent waveguides of the multiplicity of waveguides.
A first waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides is configured to deliver collimated light injected into the first waveguide to an eye of a user.
A second waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides is configured to deliver collimated light through a first lens of the multiplicity of lenses and through the first waveguide of the multiplicity of waveguides to the eye of the user.
The first lens is a negative lens.
The first lens creates a convex wavefront curvature.
The collimated light is representative of the optical infinity focal plane.
A compensating lens layer configured to compensate for the aggregate power of the multiplicity of lenses.
Schowengerdt teaches a stacked waveguide assembly (178) as shown in Fig. 8A.
PNG
media_image4.png
509
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schowengerdt teaches:
A multiplicity of lenses (192, 194, 196, 198,), each lens of the multiplicity of lenses positioned between adjacent waveguides of the multiplicity of waveguides (182, 184, 186, 188, 190).
A first waveguide (182) of the multiplicity of waveguides is configured to deliver collimated light injected into the first waveguide to an eye of a user (Para [0135]-[0136]).
A second waveguide (184) of the multiplicity of waveguides is configured to deliver collimated light through a first lens (192) of the multiplicity of lenses and through the first waveguide (182) of the multiplicity of waveguides to the eye of the user (Para [0135]-[0136]).
The first lens is a negative lens (Para [0316]).
The first lens creates a convex wavefront curvature (Para [0316]).
The collimated light is representative of the optical infinity focal plane (Para [0316]).
A compensating lens layer configured to compensate for the aggregate power of the multiplicity of lenses (Para [0317]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiplicity of waveguides in the invention as taught by Brown in view of Levola with the waveguide stack (178) of Showengerdt. Both Brown in view of Levola and Showengerdt’s inventions are to produce 3D image having virtual depth planes. Showengerdt’s teaches the waveguide stack provides one or more image slices, wherein a first and second image slice of the one or more image slices represents a three-dimensional volume projecting light associated with the first image slice through a spatial modulation (Para [0311] and [0317]). And in further combination with the beam expander wherein a very large incoming field of incoming light that exits from the larger planar waveguide (i.e., a large eye box) (Para [0321]); thus the features of the waveguide stack provides more comfort to the viewer with respect to the depth perception. Therefore, one would be motivated to modify the multiplicity of waveguides of Brown in view of Levola with the waveguide stack of Schowengerdt to improve user comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-18, 24-26, 32-39, 47, and 50
have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New ground of rejection to Brown in view of Levola and in further view of Schowengerdt is provided for new claims 53-60.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights