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 amendment filed on August 5, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended to include the phrases “third grating configured to … to transmit light incident on the third grating within a second range of incident angles,” and “light redirecting and/or absorbing structure … configured to absorb the light incident within the second range of incident angles transmitted by the third grating” that are not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed. In Figures 16A to 16C of the specification, the stray light (1690, 1692 or 1694) enters the second waveguide (or second assembly) and incident on the light redirecting or absorbing structure (1630, 1632 or 1634) at an angular arrange (may be identified by a second angular range) and the stray light is redirected to an absorbing layer (1640 or 1650) or is absorbed by the absorbing structure (1630). The incident light reflected by the third grating and incident on the redirecting or absorbing structure at an angular range (may be identified by a first angular range, different from the second angular range), is not absorbed or redirected by the structure. The light redirected or absorbed by the redirecting and/or absorbing structure is NOT transmitted by the third grating. With regard to amendment of claims 2 and 14, the specification also does not teach explicitly that the light diffracted by the first grating toward third grating, the light diffracted by the second grating towards the fourth grating, light diffracted by the first grating towards fourth grating or light diffracted by the first grating, the second grating, the third grating or fourth grating towards an eyebox of the waveguide display is the light “incident withing the second range of incident angles transmitted by the third grating.
The claims therefore are not fully supported by the specification of originally filed.
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) 1-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Tekolste et al (US 2016/0116739 A1) in view of the US patent application by Lee et al (US 2022/0187599 A1) and US patent application publication by Waldern et al (US 2020/0225471 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Tekolste et al teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a first waveguide (1210, Figures 11A and 11B) comprising a first and second gratings (1212 and 1214) configured to reflect light incident on the first grating (with regard to amendment to claim 1), into the first waveguide and towards the second grating, a second waveguide (1220) comprises a third grating and a fourth grating (1222 and 1224), configured to reflect light incident on the third grating within a first range of incident angles (with regard to amendment to claim 1, please see Figures 11A and 11B) into the second waveguide and toward the fourth grating and a spacer layer (1216a and 1218b) between the first waveguide and the second waveguide is to form an air gap, (please see paragraph [0214]) between the first waveguide and the second waveguide, (please see Figures 11A and 11B).
Tekolste et al further teaches that the waveguide display may comprise absorbers ( 915a and 915b, Figures 9A and 9C) serves as the light redirecting or absorbing structure that may be placed at one side of a surface of the waveguide wherein the light redirecting or absorbing structure configured to absorb light that otherwise would be directed toward an eyebox of the waveguide display and would be viewed by an eye of a user of the waveguide display, (please see Figure 9C).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “third grating configured … to transmit light incident on the third grating within a second range of incident angle different from the first range of incident angles” and the phrase “a light redirecting and/or absorbing structure on a surface of the second waveguide the light redirecting and/or absorbing structure configured to absorb the light incident within the second range of incident angles transmitted by the third grating”. These phrases have been rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. These phrases can only be examined with broadest interpretation.
Lee et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a leakage image reducer including a deflection element (132, Figure 6) provided on a waveguide that deflects light incident at a certain angular range and direct the light to an absorber (136, Figure 6) located at edge of the waveguide. Lee et al teaches that the deflection element may comprise a holographic optical element or volume grating formed in a meta-material, or comprises a nanostructure, (please see paragraph [0024]), which implicitly has wavelength and angular selectivity. Lee et al in Figure 6, teaches that the light incident from the input coupling grating (124) on the deflection element (132) at a first angular range will NOT be redirected by the deflection element to an absorber for absorbing yet the light incident on the deflection element (132) at a second angular range, different from the first angular range, will be redirected to be absorbed. Waldern et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic waveguide display that is comprised of a waveguide (101, Figure 1) with an input coupler grating (103, Figure 1) and an output coupler grating (105) serves as the first and second gratings, (please see paragraph [0054]) wherein the holographic waveguide display comprises a light control layer (107) on a surface of the waveguide wherein the light control layer is configured to divert or block scattered light from the set of gratings that might otherwise enter the eyebox of waveguide display, (please see paragraph [0012]). Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may comprise a micro louver film, (please see paragraph [0060]). The structure of the micro louver film implicitly would be angular selective as well as absorbing structure the same way as the instant application, (please see claim 3 of the instant application explicitly states that the light redirecting or absorbing structure comprises micro-louver layer).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al to modify the waveguide display of Tekolste et al to include a light control film or a deflection element that is capable of redirecting and absorbing stray light that enters the waveguide would otherwise be directed toward an eyebox of the waveguide display.
With regard to claim 2, Tekolste et al in light of Lee et al and Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer of Waldern et al would block or redirect that portion of the display light scattered or diffracted by the first grating and/or the second grating, (please see Waldern et al paragraph [0012]).
With regard to claim 3, Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may comprise micro louver film, (please see paragraph [0060]). Lee et al teaches that the leakage image reducer includes a light deflecting element (132) that may comprise meta-material in which the volume grating is formed as nanostructure array that has subwavelength pitch (which implicitly is submicron pitch), (please see paragraph [0024]).
With regard to claim 4, Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may alternatively be outside of a see-through region of the waveguide display, (114, or 117 please see Figures 2 or 4).
With regard to claim 5, Tekolste et al teaches that the absorber (915b, Figure 9C) may be at least partially overlap with a see-through region of the waveguide display. Waldern et al also teaches that the light control layer may be at least partially overlap with a see-through region of the waveguide display, (please see Figures 1-4).
With regard to claim 6, Tekolste et al teaches that the absorber (915b, Figure 9C) may be associated with a filter (913a or 913b, Figures 9A and 9C, please see paragraph [0188]) that is wavelength selective. Waldern et al also teaches that the light control layer may also comprise birefringent film that is polarization selective, (please see paragraph [0060]).
With regard to claim 7, Lee et al teaches that an opaque light absorber that may comprise black matrix material (136, Figures 1 and 6) may be disposed at the edge of the waveguide that is configured to absorb the incident light redirected by the light redirecting structure or the deflecting element (132). With regard to the amendment, the light intended to be absorbed may enters the waveguide via grating.
With regard to amended claim 11, Tekolste et al in a different embodiment teaches that multiple field of views for different eyes (4 and 6, Figure 4) may be designed to have three dimensional viewing property. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tekolste et al to make the light incident on the first grating includes display light for a first field of view in one or more color and light incident on the third grating within the first range of incident angle includes display light for a second field of view and in one or more color for the benefit of creating three dimensional view or to expand the field of view.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al, Lee et al and Waldern et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Yaras et al (US 2019/0094551 A1).
The waveguide display taught by Tekolste et al in combination with the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, these references do not teach to include a light trapping structure at the edge of the waveguide display. Yaras et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for reducing stray light in waveguide apparatus wherein a light trapping structure with slanted edge, (please see Figure 11B) may be provided at the edge of the waveguide. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Yaras et al to modify the waveguide structure of Tekolste et al and Lee et al to alternatively include a light trapping structure at the edge of the waveguide for the benefit of reducing the unwanted stray light in the display.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al, Lee et al and Waldern et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Levola (PN. 8,320,032).
The waveguide display taught by Tekolste et al in combination with the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 9, Tekolste et al in a different embodiment teaches that a first waveguide may comprise the first grating,(907, Figure 9A), the second grating (911a) and additionally a fifth grating (911b) and a sixth grating (909) with the sixth grating configured to diffract the first portion of the display light to an eyebox of the waveguide display. It however does not teach that the display light is diffracted in the manner recited in the claim. Levola et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display wherein the waveguide may comprise a first grating (10, Figure 1) diffracts light to a second grating (21a or 22a), and the second grating diffracts light to a third grating (21b or 22b), the third grating diffracts light to a fourth grating (30) which diffracts the light to an eyebox (E1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Levola to modify the waveguide display for the first waveguide to comprise four gratings with the specific light diffraction order for the benefit of arranging the gratings to properly diffract the light to the eyebox of the observer.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al, Lee et al and Waldern et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Pfeiffer et al (US 2022/0004006 A1).
The waveguide display taught by Tekolste et al in combination with the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 10, Tekolste et al teaches that the first waveguide comprise more than one gratings but these references do not teach explicitly that the first waveguide comprises a first substrate, a second substrate and one or more grating layers between the first substrate and the second substrate with the gratings are in the one or more grating layers. Pfeiffer et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display wherein the waveguide comprises a first substrate (70, Figure 4) and a second substrate (72) with a grating medium or grating layer (68) interposed between the two substrate wherein the gratings (52 and 56) may be disposed within the grating layer. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Pfeiffer et al to modify the waveguide display to specifically make the waveguide has the arrangement with two substrates and gratings disposed within a grating layer that is interposed between the two substrate as an alternative design for the waveguide display.
With regard to claim 12, Pfeiffer et al also teaches that the diffractive gratings may be multiplexed grating that could be Bragg grating, (please see paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Tekolste et al (US 2016/0116739 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Lee et al (US 2022/0187599 A1) and the US patent application publication by Waldern et al (US 2020/0225471 A1) and.
Claim 13 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Tekolste et al teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a first waveguide (1210, Figures 11A and 11B) comprising a first and second gratings (1212 and 1214), which may be holographic gratings that are recorded in holographic material layer, (please see paragraphs [0186], [0193] and [0197]), that is configured to reflect light incident on the first grating into the first waveguide (with regard to amendment) and towards the second grating, a second waveguide (1220) comprises a third grating and a fourth grating (1222 and 1224), the third grating configured to reflect light incident on the third grating within a first range of incident angles into the second waveguide and toward the fourth grating, (with regard to amendment, please see paragraph [0214]). Tekolste et al teaches that a plurality of display lights (1240, 1242 and 1244, Figure 11A) incidents into the waveguide display.
Tekolste et al further teaches that the waveguide display may comprise absorbers (915a and 915b, Figures 9A and 9C) serves as the light redirecting or absorbing structure that may be placed at one side of a surface of the waveguide wherein the light redirecting or absorbing structure configured to absorb light that otherwise would be directed toward an eyebox of the waveguide display and would be viewed by an eye of a user of the waveguide display, (please see Figure 9C).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims.
Claim 13 has been amended to include the phrase “third grating configured … to transmit light incident on the third grating within a second range of incident angle different from the first range of incident angles” and the phrase “a light redirecting and/or absorbing structure on a surface of the second waveguide the light redirecting and/or absorbing structure configured to absorb the light incident within the second range of incident angles transmitted by the third grating”. These phrases have been rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. These phrases can only be examined with broadest interpretation.
Lee et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a leakage image reducer including a deflection element (132, Figure 6) provided on a waveguide that deflects light incident at a certain angular range and direct the light to an absorber (136, Figure 6) located at edge of the waveguide. Lee et al teaches that the deflection element may comprise a holographic optical element or volume grating formed in a meta-material, or comprises a nanostructure, (please see paragraph [0024]), which implicitly has wavelength and angular selectivity. Lee et al in Figure 6, teaches that the light incident from the input coupling grating (124) on the deflection element (132) at a first angular range will NOT be redirected by the deflection element to an absorber for absorbing yet the light incident on the deflection element (132) at a second angular range, different from the first angular range, will be redirected to be absorbed. Waldern et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic waveguide display that is comprised of a waveguide (101, Figure 1) with an input coupler grating (103, Figure 1) and an output coupler grating (105) serves as the first and second gratings, (please see paragraph [0054]) wherein the holographic waveguide display comprises a light control layer (107) on a surface of the waveguide wherein the light control layer is configured to divert or block scattered light from the set of gratings that might otherwise enter the eyebox of waveguide display, (please see paragraph [0012]). Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may comprise a micro louver film, (please see paragraph [0060]). The structure of the micro louver film implicitly would be angular selective as well as absorbing structure the same way as the instant application, (please see claim 3 of the instant application explicitly states that the light redirecting or absorbing structure comprises micro-louver layer).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al to modify the waveguide display of Tekolste et al to include a light control film or a deflection element that is capable of redirecting and absorbing stray light that enters the waveguide would otherwise be directed toward an eyebox of the waveguide display.
With regard to claim 14, Tekolste et al in light of Lee et al and Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer of Waldern et al would block or redirect that portion of the display light scattered or diffracted by the first grating and/or the second grating, (please see Waldern et al paragraph [0012]).
With regard to claim 15, Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may comprise micro louver film, (please see paragraph [0060]). Lee et al teaches that the leakage image reducer includes a light deflecting element (132) that may comprise meta-material in which the volume grating is formed as nanostructure array that has subwavelength pitch (which implicitly is submicron pitch), (please see paragraph [0024]).
With regard to claim 16, Waldern et al teaches that the light control layer may alternatively be outside of a see-through region of the waveguide display, (114, or 117 please see Figures 2 or 4). Tekolste et al teaches that the absorber (915b, Figure 9C) may be at least partially overlap with a see-through region of the waveguide display. Waldern et al also teaches that the light control layer may be at least partially overlap with a see-through region of the waveguide display, (please see Figures 1-4).
With regard to claim 17, Tekolste et al teaches that the absorber (915b, Figure 9C) may be associated with a filter (913a or 913b, Figures 9A and 9C, please see paragraph [0188]) that is wavelength selective. Waldern et al also teaches that the light control layer may also comprise birefringent film that is polarization selective, (please see paragraph [0060]).
With regard to claim 20, Tekolste et al in a different embodiment teaches that multiple field of views for different eyes (4 and 6, Figure 4) may be designed to have three dimensional viewing property. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tekolste et al to make the first portion of the display light include display light for a first field of view in one or more color and the second portion of the display light include display light for a second field of view and in one or more color for the benefit of creating three dimensional view or to expand the field of view.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al, Lee et al and Waldern et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Yaras et al (US 2019/0094551 A1).
The waveguide display taught by Tekolste et al in combination with the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 18, these references do not teach to include a light trapping structure at the edge of the waveguide display. Yaras et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for reducing stray light in waveguide apparatus wherein a light trapping structure with slanted edge, (please see Figure 11B) may be provided at the edge of the waveguide. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Yaras et al to modify the waveguide structure of Tekolste et al and Lee et al to alternatively include a light trapping structure at the edge of the waveguide for the benefit of reducing the unwanted stray light in the display.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al, Lee et al and Waldern et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Levola (PN. 8,320,032).
The waveguide display taught by Tekolste et al in combination with the teachings of Lee et al and Waldern et al as described in claim 13 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 19, Tekolste et al in a different embodiment teaches that a first waveguide may comprise the first grating,(907, Figure 9A), the second grating (911a) and additionally a fifth grating (911b) and a sixth grating (909) with the sixth grating configured to diffract the first portion of the display light to an eyebox of the waveguide display. It however does not teach that the display light is diffracted in the manner recited in the claim. Levola et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display wherein the waveguide may comprise a first grating (10, Figure 1) diffracts light to a second grating (21a or 22a), and the second grating diffracts light to a third grating (21b or 22b), the third grating diffracts light to a fourth grating (30) which diffracts the light to an eyebox (E1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Levola to modify the waveguide display for the first waveguide to comprise four gratings with the specific light diffraction order for the benefit of arranging the gratings to properly diffract the light to the eyebox of the observer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 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.
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 9:00AM-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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 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