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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 12/24/25 is acknowledged.
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 1,3-4, 7, 9,12,13, 17-19 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegyi (US 20190204594 A1, cited previously) in view of Bablumyan (US 20190056593 A1,cited previously) and Dannoux (US 20170261675 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claims 1 and 42, Hegyi teaches a device (at least Fig.2) for generating a luminous distribution for illuminating an object, comprising: an optical waveguide 200 having a thickness and comprising the following optical elements: at least one input coupling element (202,[0024]) configured to couple light into the optical waveguide as a light beam having an associated beam profile, a plurality of replication regions (208,212) for replication of the light beam, each configured to receive at least one associated input light beam having an input beam profile and to provide a plurality of associated output light beams (multiple arrows shown in Figure) having respective output beam profiles, wherein at least one first replication region (row of 208) of the plurality of replication regions is optically coupled with a second replication region (212) of the plurality of replication regions, such that the second replication region is configured to receive at least one of the plurality of associated output light beams of the first replication region as the associated input light beam of the second replication region, and wherein the first replication region is optically coupled with the at least one input coupling element for receiving the light beam as the associated input light beam of the first replication region, the device being configured to couple emitted light from a number of the plurality of replication regions out of the optical waveguide to provide the luminous distribution, wherein at least one of the replication regions is a hologram ([0021],[0027]) , wherein the plurality of replication regions comprises a first set of replication regions, which are each optically coupled to one another, and the replication regions of the first set of replication regions being each configured to: provide at least one first associated output beam of the plurality of output light beams to another replication region of the first set of replication regions, and not provide at least one second associated output beam of the plurality of output light beams to another replication region of the first set of replication regions (from the light paths shown in Fig.2), to obtain a number of emitted beams of the first set of replication regions, wherein the plurality of replication regions comprises a second set of replication regions, which are each optically coupled to each other and a subset of which is configured to receive the number of emitted beams of the first set of replication regions as respective input light beams (arrows pointing from top to bottom in Figure 2).
Hegyi already teaches:
1. The optical elements 110 are titled/angled (Fig.1). Further that the optical elements are diffractive elements ([0020]).
2. And that holographic optics may be used for the diffractive elements (see in [0021]: or diffractive optical element such as a ruled or holographic grating);
but does not explicitly teach a plurality of replication regions each comprising a volume hologram being positioned at an angle within the optical waveguide.
Note: the difference between regular and volume hologram is, by definition of a volume hologram: from https://wasatchphotonics.com/technologies/volume-phase-holographic-gratings/:
Volume Phase Holographic Gratings:
A typical surface relief grating is not as thick as a volume phase grating.
Volume phase grating can be made thicker than a standard surface relief grating.
Therefore, volume holograms can be formed of gratings that are thick.
Further, Hegli already teaches gratings that are angled and that can be holograms, and it is well known in the art to use volume type of diffractive holograms that are titled.
Bablumyan teaches an input coupler 14 (at least Fig.1), a light guide 12 with thickness t ([0062]), input angle
α
. Further Bablumyan teaches a volume hologram (claim 1 of Bablumyan).
Therefore, the structure in Fig.1 as claimed is disclosed in Bablumyan, and the relation in [0062] involves the parameters such as the input angle, the waveguide thickness, and the design criteria for the input HOE 14 (Fig.2) is also described in [0021], [0025]- [0027] and [0060].
Therefore, while Hegyi already teaches holographic angled diffraction optics, whereas Bablumyan teaches volume hologram that are angled and that volume holograms are known to be thicker in nature, in order to achieve precise control of the couplings and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to use titled volume hologram for each replication region in the device of Hegyi, from the teachings of Bablumyan, in order to achieve precise control of the couplings (that are the general properties of using volume holograms).
Further Hegyi in view of Bablumyan does not explicitly teach:
an optical waveguide having a thickness d and the at least one input coupling element comprising a square shape having an edge length b, wherein b and d are selected to not maintain the relationship
b/2 > d * tan(α) OR
b/2d > tan(α) OR
arc tan b/2d > α OR
α < arc tan b/2d (is not maintained for claim 1 ) and it is maintained for claim 42
where α: is a coupling angle with respect to a surface normal of the optical waveguide in the region of the input coupling element.
Bablumyan teaches an input coupler 14 (at least Fig.1), a light guide 12 with thickness t ([0062]), input angle
α
. Further Bablumyan teaches a volume hologram (claim 1 of Bablumyan).
Therefore, the structure in Fig.1 as claimed is disclosed in Bablumyan, and the relation in [0062] involves the parameters such as the input angle, the waveguide thickness, and the design criteria for the input HOE 14 (Fig.2) is also described in [0021], [0025]- [0027] and [0060].
Bablumyan discloses in [0062]:
PNG
media_image1.png
29
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the parameters within the relationship as claimed are result effective variables.
Furthermore, well known that the input coupler design is related to the thickness of the light guide. This is disclosed in Dannoux in:
[0056] The coupling efficiency of light coupler 38 is a function of two major parameters, the light coupler taper length L.sub.t and the taper ratio TR, calculated as TR=Th1/Th2, where Th1 is the thickness of the glass light guide plate and Th2 is the length of input facet 46.
Further [0071]- [0075] discloses various design values for the thicknesses of the coupler and the light guide in Dannoux.
Therefore, from the teachings of Bablumyan and Dannoux, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to design the input coupler such that the relation b/2 > d * tan(α) is not maintained for claim 1, or maintained for claim 42, by routine experimentation, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to optimize the coupling of light into the light guide.
Regarding claim 3, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein the device does not comprise a spatial light modulator configured to modulate, on the basis of data, light to be coupled into the optical waveguide.
Regarding claim 4, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein at least a subset of the plurality of replication regions provides a partial luminous distribution of the luminous distribution, said partial luminous distribution having effective focusing (from teachings of Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux).
Regarding claim 7, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches the device comprises a light source assembly, the light source assembly being configured to provide the light and comprising at least one of the following elements: two light sources configured to provide light in different directions and/or in different wavelength ranges and/or to different illumination positions of the at least one input coupling element, a beam splitter, a scanning mirror, a switchable element (multiple light sources in Fig.3 of Hegyi)
Regarding claim 9, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein the optical coupling has a serial structure.
Regarding claim 12, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device (208 in series in Fig.2 of Hegyi), wherein the optical coupling of the first set of replication regions (- -and/- -) or the second set of replication regions comprises an optical coupling in series (- -and/ - -) or the optical coupling comprises a tree structure.
Regarding claim 13, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device wherein the optical elements further comprise: at least one output coupling element configured to couple light out of the optical waveguide ([0034] in Hegyi).
Regarding claim 17, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein the at least one output coupling element comprises at least one other optical element configured to generate a pattern of coupled out light.
Regarding claim 18, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein at least one of the optical elements and/or the at least one other optical element is selected from: (a diffractive element, a switchable diffractive element) a volume hologram.
Regarding claim 19, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches a device, wherein the at least one input coupling element is configured to perform coupling based on a characteristic of the light, and wherein the replication regions are configured to produce at least two different associated luminous distributions for at least two different characteristics of the light (in coupling grating in Fig.6 and in-coupling elements facing the light source in Hegyi and Bablumyan).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux and further in view of Pepper (US 7729572 B1,cited previously)
Regarding claim 2, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach the optical waveguide is configured to receive the light having a first modulation, the device being configured such that the luminous distribution has a second modulation, the second modulation having a greater number of extrema than the first modulation.
Pepper teaches use of holographic gratings to achieve a second modulation having a greater number of extrema than the first modulation (see optical input and output in Fig.1a, Fig.2b and Fig.6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to generate multiple output beams, such that the second modulation having a greater number of extrema than the first modulation from the teachings of Pepper, in order to achieve precise control of the input and output coupling.
Claims 5,10, 14-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux further in view of Falicoff (US 20020149924, cited by Applicant, cited previously)
Regarding claim 5, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above but is silent regarding the luminous distribution comprises different light beams overlapping at the optical waveguide.
Falicoff teaches both beam overlapping and non-overlapping examples (Fig.5 and 6) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to use overlapping of beam, as disclosed in Falicoff, in the device of Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux in order to create a diversity of outputs ([0104] in Falicoff).
Regarding claim 10, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,Dannoux and Falicoff teaches the device wherein the optical coupling has a tree structure (Fig.27,28,29A and 29B in Falicoff).
Regarding claim 14, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,Dannoux and Falicoff teaches the device, wherein the at least one output coupling element and/or the at least one input coupling element
Regarding claim 15, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,Dannoux and Falicoff teaches the device, wherein the luminous distribution is configured such that a plurality of rays from different regions of the optical waveguide are emitted such that the emitted light is effectively focused and/or effectively defocused (Fig.49B and Fig.6 in Falicoff).
Regarding claim 16, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,Dannoux and Falicoff teaches the device, wherein the plurality of rays are collimated (- -and/ - -) or emitted from the optical guide in discrete angular regions (Fig.6 of Falicoff).
Regarding claim 23, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,Dannoux and Falicoff teaches the device, wherein the optical waveguide has first and second sides, and wherein the luminous distribution.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux and St in view of Bang (KR 2015065137 A, cited previously)
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,and Dannoux teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the device is configured to provide a luminous distributionthe object when the object is located at an angle to a surface normal of the optical waveguide (for claim 21).
However, use of an object remote from the device and the size of the object being small are well known techniques in the art, as disclosed in Bang (Fig.12 to 14) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to use an object as disclosed in Bang in the device of Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,and Dannoux in order to achieve the desired optimized image.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegyi in view of Bablumyan and Dannoux and further in view of Naruse (GB 2411248 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 22, Hegyi in view of Bablumyan,and Dannoux teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the plurality of optical waveguides having a common optical waveguide with an output coupling area, wherein the common optical waveguide has at least one cutout with a cutout area in the output coupling area, and wherein the plurality of devices is arranged such that the luminous distributions of the plurality of devices originate from at least 80% of the output coupling surface without the cutout area.
However, dividing of beams in a branched shape with cut-outs in between is well known in the art as disclosed in Naruse (see Drawings) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a branched waveguide with outcoupling of more than 80% as compared to the ouput from the cutouts, by routine experimentation, since where the general conditions are disclosed by the prior art, achieving the optimum range involves routine skill in the art, in order to achieve the desired output from the output coupling ports based on the application.
Response to Arguments
The argument filed by the Applicant on 12/24/25 is acknowledged, however they are not found to be persuasive. The response to arguments from previous office action still hold and have been copied right below.
Applicant has only addressed the limitations regarding the mathematical relation, which is
PNG
media_image2.png
65
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for claim 42 and which is:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for claim 1
The arguments are not found to be persuasive for the following reasons:
The very fact that the relation is so broad that it has two completely opposite conditions of being maintained and not being maintained, results in a gamut of possibilities for all the values of b/2 being higher than d * tan(a) and the gamut of possibilities of all the values of b/2 being lower than d * tan(a), and this, is by itself showing that the relation is not critically limited, and an extremely huge gamut of values of b/2 can be met, as a whole, in the design of the coupler.
Secondly, the specification gives a wide design variation, in the fulfilling of the above relationship. For example, in [0051] of Applicant’s instant publication, it discloses:
[0051] Assuming a square input coupling element with an edge length b that is completely illuminated by the collimated light beam, gaps between the light beams that form the illumination distribution can be avoided by maintaining the relationship
b/2>d*tan(α). (1)
Therefore, as seen above, Applicant is just ASSUMING a square input coupling element, meaning the relation applies only on the ASSUMPTION of a square coupler, AND NOT ANY OTHER SHAPE.
Thirdly, Applicant explicitly discloses a myriad of conditions, and not just this mathematical relationship for a square coupler, conditions on which the couplers meet the design goals, such as:
PNG
media_image4.png
181
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Applicant applies yet another condition for the improved coupling as claimed that is:
PNG
media_image5.png
156
473
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further even more, Applicant completely deviates from applying the above relationship, once Applicant uses volume holograms:
PNG
media_image6.png
109
449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant explicitly states that the relation may not be met if volume holograms are used.
With all the above Applicant’s disclosure, the validity of claim 1 becomes questionable, because 1. the b/2>d*tan(α) relation is claimed 2. a volume hologram is also recited, whereas specification discloses that one can go easy on the relationship, if a volume hologram is used.
This all boils down to the fact that the relation was just an example by assuming a square coupler, and then, once a volume hologram is used, the relation is simply not critical and not even needed to be met.
Therefore, for all the above reasons, the rejection still holds and Applicant is also respectfully directed to additional prior art from the response to the previous office action below:
Response to arguments from previous office action, that also hold in the response to arguments of amendment filed on 12/24/25:
Applicant’s main argument that was found to be persuasive was for claims 1 and 42, wherein Examiner inadvertently considered to have the mathematical relationship as claimed, to be NOT MAINTAINED for both claims 1 and 42. However, Applicant has indicated in the Remarks that while claim 1 is drawn to the mathematical relationship being not maintained, while claim 42 is drawn to the mathematical relationship being maintained.
Examiner notes that the relation b/2 > d * tan(α) being not maintained for claim 1 and the same relation b/2 > d * tan(α) being maintained for claim 42, is by itself indicative that the relation does not stand critical since both
≤
(less than or equal to, for being not maintained in claim 1) as well as > (greater than, for being maintained for claim 42); would result in the relationship working for either > OR
≤
. And therefore it ends in a broad design range.
As already cited previously, which the Applicant has not addressed in their Remarks, Dannoux discloses the design parameters in : [0056] The coupling efficiency of light coupler 38 is a function of two major parameters, the light coupler taper length L.sub.t and the taper ratio TR, calculated as TR=Th1/Th2, where Th1 is the thickness of the glass light guide plate and Th2 is the length of input facet 46.
Further [0071]- [0075] discloses various design values for the thicknesses of the coupler and the light guide in Dannoux.
And whereas the new prior art, Bablumyan also teaches the exact same structure as claimed in Fig. 1, and it also teaches a volume hologram, relationships involving the input hologram AND also relations involving the input angle, thickness of waveguide.
Therefore, the relationship as claimed is in a broad range, the parameters involving the relationships are result effective variables already disclosed in Dannoux as well as Bablumyan.
Therefore, from the teachings of Bablumyan and Dannoux, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to design the input coupler such that the relation b/2 > d * tan(α) is not maintained for claim 1, or maintained for claim 42, by routine experimentation, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to optimize the coupling of light into the light guide.
Further, CN 109445096 A: discloses a volume hologram, the Figure below, and the design aspects involving input coupler: M polarization direction perpendicular to the grating grooves. can be selected waveguide size, the length is 57.6, the width is 34, the thickness is 1.5, wherein part length is 14 coupling input grating and output grating coupled part length is 23.6 millimeter.
PNG
media_image7.png
366
549
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cited previously:
Further Examiner respectfully notes that illumination distribution gaps are known issues in the art and methods of mitigating this issue includes design in \couplers as disclosed in:
DE 102016009459 A1: The interface, also referred to as a human-machine interface, allows the user to specify the parameters for setting and / or changing an illumination intensity distribution. In particular, an input device is coupled to the interface, by means of which the user can specify the parameters.
CN 109445096 A: Meanwhile, in order to realize uniform coupling of different field of view, for input and output coupling gratings, when incident angular change, the diffraction efficiency should be kept stable; 3, in the output coupling diffractive, due to diffraction, emitting illumination light will gradually weaken. illumination distribution to index attenuation rule, so in the diffraction output coupling, reflecting a negative first grade diffraction efficiency should be kept at a relatively low value so as to reduce the rate of decay of the emitted light and to improve the uniformity of the illumination in the pupil.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights