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 .
Status
The filing on 12/30/2025 amended claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-22 are pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basset (US 20200096767 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Basset teaches an optical combiner (1; Fig. 1-24), wherein the optical combiner (1) comprises a transparent substrate (4) and a metasurface layer (2, 20) disposed on a surface of the transparent substrate (4), wherein the metasurface layer (2, 20) comprises a plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) arranged two-dimensionally with adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) forming metasurface unit pairs (a ridge from 22/23 and a corresponding ridge from 24/25), wherein at least some of the metasurface unit pairs are arranged in a V-shape or an inverted-V shape (Fig. 4a; [0089]), a spacing between two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) in the plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) gradually changes along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1), and a relative angle between any two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) is non-zero (Fig. 4a; [0029], [0030], [0093]-[0095]). Basset further teaches the metasurface layer (2, 20) is configured to reflect optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in a narrow-linewidth band (Δλ, [0115]) and transmit optical signals in a broad-linewidth band (WORLD; [0102]), and wherein the optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in the narrow-linewidth band (Δλ) comprise at least three wavelengths ([0103], [0130]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 12, Basset teaches an augmented reality (AR) device (Fig. 1-24; [0025]), wherein the AR device comprises: an optical combiner (1), wherein the optical combiner (1) comprises a transparent substrate (4) and a metasurface layer (2, 20), the metasurface layer (2, 20) is disposed on a surface of the transparent substrate (4), the metasurface layer (2, 20) comprises a plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) arranged two-dimensionally, with adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) forming metasurface unit pairs (a ridge from 22/23 and a corresponding ridge from 24/25), wherein at least some of the metasurface unit pairs are arranged in a V-shape or an inverted-V shape (Fig. 4a; [0089]), a spacing between two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) in the plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) changes along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1), and a relative angle between any two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) is non-zero (Fig. 4a; [0029], [0030], [0093]-[0095]); and at least one projector (110, 110a, 110b, 111, 112); and a fixing apparatus (100; Fig. 24), wherein the fixing apparatus (100) is configured to fix the optical combiner (1) and the at least one projector (110, 110a, 110b, 111, 112), wherein the optical combiner (1) is configured to reflect optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in a narrow-linewidth band (Δλ) that are generated by the at least one projector (110, 110a, 110b, 111, 112) and transmit optical signals (WORLD) in a broad-linewidth band, and wherein the optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in the narrow-linewidth band (Δλ) comprise at least three wavelengths ([0103], [0130]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 13, Basset teaches an augmented reality (AR) device (Fig. 1-24; [0025]), wherein the AR device comprises: an optical combiner (1), wherein the optical combiner (1) comprises a transparent substrate (4) and a metasurface layer (2, 20), the metasurface layer (2, 20) is disposed on a surface of the transparent substrate (4), the metasurface layer (2, 20) comprises a plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) arranged two-dimensionally, with adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) forming metasurface unit pairs (a ridge from 22/23 and a corresponding ridge from 24/25), wherein at least some of the metasurface unit pairs are arranged in a V-shape or an inverted-V shape (Fig. 4a; [0089]), a spacing between two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) in the plurality of metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) changes along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1), and a relative angle between any two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) is non-zero (Fig. 4a; [0029], [0030], [0093]-[0095]); and; and at least one projector (110, 110a, 110b, 111, 112), wherein the optical combiner (1) is configured to reflect optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in a narrow-linewidth band (Δλ) that are generated by the at least one projector (110, 110a, 110b, 111, 112) and transmit optical signals (WORLD) in a broad-linewidth band, and the optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) in the narrow-linewidth band (Δλ) comprise at least three wavelengths ([0103], [0130]-[0135]).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 18, Basset further teaches the metasurface layer (2, 20) comprises a plurality of regions, optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) corresponding to different regions have different emergent angles, to enable optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) emergent at different angles converge to one point (Fig. 1, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 19a-23).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 19, Basset further teaches the spacing between two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) monotonically increases or decreases along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 20, Basset further teaches a relative angle between two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) monotonically changes along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Basset further teaches an area of a metasurface unit (22, 24 or 23, 25) monotonically changes along one or two dimensions (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Basset further teaches the metasurface layer (2, 20) comprises at least two layers of materials having different refractive indexes ([0104], [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Basset further teaches the optical combiner (1) further comprises a transparent conductive layer (metallic layer; Fig. 3c, 3g), the metasurface layer (2, 20) is disposed on the transparent conductive layer, and the transparent conductive layer is configured to control reflection angles of optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) on the metasurface layer (2, 20).
Regarding claim 11, Basset further teaches a refractive index adjustment and control layer (5) is disposed on the metasurface layer (2, 20; Fig. 18), and the refractive index adjustment and control layer (5) is configured to adjust a refractive index of the metasurface layer (2, 20) to control reflection angles of the optical signals (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, 10e) on the metasurface layer (2, 20; Fig. 18; [0153]).
Claim Rejections - AIA 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basset.
Regarding claims 8, 21, and 22, even though Basset does not explicitly teach the two adjacent metasurface units (ridges/grooves in 22/23 or 24/25) have different heights, Basset teaches parameters such as the grating depth, orientation, period, profile and composition of the waveguide layer are tunable to meet a set particular design goals ([0009], [0030], [0032], [0103], [0115]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the two adjacent metasurface units have different heights; because it is a matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 13 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, applicant/s argue,
From the outset, Basset discloses an optical combiner based on Resonant Waveguide Gratings (RWGs). See Basset, e.g., Abstract; 4-9, 30-32, 103-105; and Figures 1, 4a-5e. As illustrated in Basset's Figures 1, 4a-4b, and detailed in Figures 5a-5e, the disclosed structures are periodic grating lines, ridges, or grooves. For example, Basset's Figure 1 depict resonant waveguide grating regions (elements 23 and 25) arranged on the combiner. However, as clearly shown in Figure 1, the elements in Basset are arranged in a radial pattern. In this radial pattern, the adjacent pairs of elements (elements 23 and 25) effectively gradually rotate in a same angular direction along a radial, vertical, or horizontal direction. This gradual rotation in a radial layout is different from the claimed local arrangement where two adjacent units themselves form a V-shape or an inverted-V shape. These structures are continuous lines extending along a direction perpendicular to the grating vector.
Hence, Basset has not been shown to disclose adjacent metasurface units (such as nanopillars) arranged in the specific pairwise configuration recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, Basset has not been shown to describe or to suggest the specific geometric arrangement where "adjacent metasurface units forming metasurface unit pairs" and "at least some of the metasurface unit pairs are arranged in a V-shape or an inverted-V shape," as recited in amended claim 1.
Moreover, Basset further discloses that, within each grating region (23/25), the structural elements (elements 22 and 24) are prallel or slightly chirped grating lines (see ¶¶32, 94-5; Figures 5a-5e), not discrete units forming local V-shaped pairs. As such, Basset's micro-structures within the grating regions are not arranged in V-shape or an inverted-V shape either. Rather, Basset teaches a radial distribution of grating regions to achieve wide field-of-view, which does not render the claimed specific V-shaped micro-structure anticipated. Because Basset fails to disclose the specific structural limitation of V-shaped or inverted-V shaped metasurface unit pairs, it does not anticipate amended claim 1. (Remarks; p. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 12, and 13 do not define or limit the metasurface unit to any particular shape or structure; hence the metasurface unit is interpreted as a ridge/groove in 22/23 or 24/25. Clearly, the “metasurface unit pairs are arranged in a V-shape or an inverted-V shape” (Fig. 4a; [0089]).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882