DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/14/25 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
Response to Amendment
The amendments on 09/15/25 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11, filed on 09/15/25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant states the references does not teach the claims of “wherein out-coupling grating structure is switchable between a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state for out-coupling light from the slab,” in claim 1; “wherein the out-coupling grating structure comprises a plurality of grating fringes having a switchable distribution of out-coupling efficiency for out-coupling light from the slab including a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state,” in claim 10; and “wherein switching the angular distribution includes switching between a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state for out-coupling light from the slab,” in claim 18.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and an updated rejection reflecting the amended claim language is below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradski (US 20190094981).
Regarding claim 1, Bradski teaches a pupil-replicating lightguide for expanding image light, the pupil-replicating lightguide (fig 8l-8n) comprising, a slab of transparent material (planar waveguide 216) for guiding the image light therein by a series of internal reflections from opposed surfaces of the slab (¶257, as shown in fig. 8G-8N, a diffraction pattern 220, or “diffractive optical element” (or “DOE”) has been embedded within a planar waveguide 216 such that as a collimated beam is totally internally reflected along the planar waveguide 216); and an out-coupling grating structure (¶262, with dynamic changes to the diffraction terms, such as the linear diffraction pitch term as in figs. 8L-8N, a beam scanning or tiling functionality may be achieved…it may be desirable to have a relatively low diffraction grating efficiency in each of the DOEs (220,221) because it facilitates distribution of the light) supported by the slab (216) for out-coupling portions of the image light from the slab (216, light rays shown in fig. 8L-8N), wherein the portions are laterally offset from one another along a path of the image light in the slab (216, the light ray are laterally offset from one another shown in fig. 8L-8N, along a path of image light in the waveguide 216), wherein the out-coupling grating structure has a switchable distribution of out-coupling efficiency (whereby the grating pitch is changed to steer the output beam over time over the FOV to create a larger field of view, see ¶460 and ¶465, a DOE such as a Bragg grating may be configured to change pitch versus time, such as by a mechanical stretching of the grating (for example, if the grating resides on or comprises an elastic material), a moire beat pattern between two gratings on two different planes (the gratings may be the same or different pitches), Z-axis motion (e.g., closer to the eye, or farther away from the eye) of the grating, which functionally is similar in effect to stretching of the grating, or electro-active gratings that may be switched on or off, such as one created using a polymer dispersed liquid crystal approach wherein liquid crystal droplets may be controllably activated to change the refractive index to become an active grating.), and wherein out-coupling grating structure (220, 221) is switchable between a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state for out-coupling light (220, 221) from the slab (216; low efficiency is related to a low energy state (off) because minimal energy is used, while high efficiency is related to a high energy state (on) because energy is utilized effectively to perform tasks).
Regarding claim 10, Bradski teaches a near-eye display (fig. 8l-8n) comprising, a projector for providing image light (¶259, waveguide 218 into which the beam may be injected (by a projector or display)); and a pupil-replicating lightguide (fig 8l-8n) coupled to the projector (¶259, waveguide 218 into which the beam may be injected (by a projector or display)) and comprising, a slab of transparent material (planar waveguide 216) for guiding the image light therein by a series of internal reflections from opposed surfaces of the slab (¶257, as shown in fig. 8G-8N, a diffraction pattern 220, or “diffractive optical element” (or “DOE”) has been embedded within a planar waveguide 216 such that as a collimated beam is totally internally reflected along the planar waveguide 216); and an out-coupling grating structure (¶262, with dynamic changes to the diffraction terms, such as the linear diffraction pitch term as in figs. 8L-8N, a beam scanning or tiling functionality may be achieved…it may be desirable to have a relatively low diffraction grating efficiency in each of the DOEs (220,221) because it facilitates distribution of the light) supported by the slab (216) for out-coupling portions of the image light from the slab (216, light rays shown in fig. 8L-8N), wherein the portions are laterally offset from one another along a path of the image light in the slab (216, the light ray are laterally offset from one another shown in fig. 8L-8N, along a path of image light in the waveguide 216), wherein the out- coupling grating structure comprises a plurality of grating fringes having a switchable distribution of out-coupling efficiency (whereby the grating pitch is changed to steer the output beam over time over the FOV to create a larger field of view, see ¶460 and ¶465, a DOE such as a Bragg grating may be configured to change pitch versus time, such as by a mechanical stretching of the grating (for example, if the grating resides on or comprises an elastic material), a moire beat pattern between two gratings on two different planes (the gratings may be the same or different pitches), Z-axis motion (e.g., closer to the eye, or farther away from the eye) of the grating, which functionally is similar in effect to stretching of the grating, or electro-active gratings that may be switched on or off, such as one created using a polymer dispersed liquid crystal approach wherein liquid crystal droplets may be controllably activated to change the refractive index to become an active grating.) for out-coupling light from the slab (216) including a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state (low efficiency is related to a low energy state (off) because minimal energy is used, while high efficiency is related to a high energy state (on) because energy is utilized effectively to perform tasks).
Regarding claim 18, Bradski teaches a method for displaying an image, the method (fig 8l-8n) comprising, providing image light to a pupil-replicating lightguide comprising a slab (planar waveguide 216) of transparent material (¶262, light coming from the world 144 toward the eye 58 in an augmented reality configuration for fig. 8); guiding the image light (shown in fig. 8l-8n) in the slab (216) by a series of internal reflections from opposed surfaces of a slab (216) of transparent material (¶257, as shown in fig. 8G-8N, a diffraction pattern 220, or “diffractive optical element” (or “DOE”) has been embedded within a planar waveguide 216 such that as a collimated beam is totally internally reflected along the planar waveguide 216 and ¶262, light coming from the world 144 toward the eye 58 in an augmented reality configuration for fig. 8); out-coupling portions of the image light from the slab by an out-coupling grating structure (¶262, with dynamic changes to the diffraction terms, such as the linear diffraction pitch term as in figs. 8L-8N, a beam scanning or tiling functionality may be achieved…it may be desirable to have a relatively low diffraction grating efficiency in each of the DOEs (220,221) because it facilitates distribution of the light), wherein the portions are laterally offset from one another along a path of the image light in the slab (216, the light ray are laterally offset from one another shown in fig. 8L-8N, along a path of image light in the waveguide 216); and switching angular distribution of out-coupling efficiency of a plurality of grating fringes of the out-coupling grating structure (whereby the grating pitch is changed to steer the output beam over time over the FOV to create a larger field of view, see ¶460 and ¶465, a DOE such as a Bragg grating may be configured to change pitch versus time, such as by a mechanical stretching of the grating (for example, if the grating resides on or comprises an elastic material), a moire beat pattern between two gratings on two different planes (the gratings may be the same or different pitches), Z-axis motion (e.g., closer to the eye, or farther away from the eye) of the grating, which functionally is similar in effect to stretching of the grating, or electro-active gratings that may be switched on or off, such as one created using a polymer dispersed liquid crystal approach wherein liquid crystal droplets may be controllably activated to change the refractive index to become an active grating.), wherein switching the angular distribution includes switching between a high-efficiency state and a low-efficiency state for out-coupling light from the slab (216; low efficiency is related to a low energy state (off) because minimal energy is used, while high efficiency is related to a high energy state (on) because energy is utilized effectively to perform tasks).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski (US 20190094981) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meng et al. (US 20190310456).
Regarding claim 8, Bradski teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the out-coupling grating structure comprises a fluidic grating. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Meng teaches the pupil-replicating lightguide (fig. 1), wherein the out-coupling grating structure comprises a fluidic grating (¶16, the light emitting direction, the emitted light is converged to the pupil position, and an electrowetting layer based on electrowetting technology and a grating layer based on a light waveguide grating coupling technology are provided and combining the electrowetting layer and the grating layer not only realizes variable refractive index gratings and grating switching, but also achieves no viewing angle range limit and fast response. note: switchable gratings based on the electrowetting effect are a type of fluidic grating, as they manipulate fluid interfaces to create or modulate periodic optical structures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lightguide of Bradski with the out-coupling grating structure comprising a fluidic grating of Meng, for the purpose of providing a variable refractive index gratings and grating switching which achieves no viewing angle range limit and fast response (¶16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski (US 20190094981) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Geng et al. (US 20200371388).
Regarding claim 9, Bradski teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the out-coupling grating structure comprises a grating having a wavelength-dependent refractive index contrast. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Geng teaches the pupil-replicating lightguide (fig. 7C), wherein the out-coupling grating structure comprises a grating having a wavelength-dependent refractive index contrast (¶114, polarization volume hologram (PVH) grating 700); Note: the diffraction efficiency of a polarization volume hologram (PVH) depends on the wavelength, and for each wavelength, the efficiency is influenced by how strongly that wavelength interacts with the grating’s refractive index pattern, which depends on its polarization and direction.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lightguide of Bradski with the out-coupling grating structure comprises a grating having a wavelength-dependent refractive index contrast of Geng, for the purpose of having the ability to selectively diffract light based on wavelength and polarization (¶114).
Claims 11 and 20 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski (US 20190094981) as applied to claims 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Mattila et al. (US 11,397,465).
Regarding claim 11, Bradski teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach an eye tracker for determining a position of a pupil of a user's eye at an eyebox of the near-eye display; and a controller operably coupled to the projector, the eye tracker, and the pupil- replicating lightguide, and configured to: cause the eye tracker to determine the position of the pupil; and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil, switch the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Mattila teaches the near-eye display, further comprising, an eye tracker (eye tracker sensors 705, shown in fig. 7) for determining a position of a pupil (col. 18, lines 35-40, image sensor 2514, may be used to determine a direction of gaze) of a user's eye at an eyebox (note: eyebox is the area where your eye can be positioned to see the whole image through a display or optical device) of the near-eye display (fig. 1); and a controller (2520; col. 15, lines 60-65, the visor typically interfaces with other components of the HMD device such as head-mounting/retention systems and other subsystems including sensors, power management, controllers, etc.) operably coupled to the projector (2512), the eye tracker (2514), and the pupil-replicating lightguide, and configured to: cause the eye tracker (2514) to determine the position of the pupil (col. 18, lines 35-40, image sensor 2514, may be used to determine a direction of gaze); and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil, switch the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position (col. 22, lines 59-68, the HMD device further comprises an eye tracker that is operatively coupled to the IR illumination source and the sensors, the eye tracker configured to control the IR illumination source and the sensors to generate glints and capture images of the glints for eye tracking. In another, illumination source to generate a temporally or spatially variable configurable pattern of IR points sources.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the display of Bradski with an eye tracker for determining a position of a pupil of a user's eye at an eyebox of the near-eye display; and a controller operably coupled to the projector, the eye tracker, and the pupil- replicating lightguide, and configured to: cause the eye tracker to determine the position of the pupil; and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil, switch the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position of Mattila, for the purpose of controlling the illumination on the eye by tracking the eye (col. 22, 50-68 and col. 18, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 20, Bradski teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach using an eye tracker to determine a position of a pupil of a user's eye at an eyebox of the near-eye display; and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil, switching the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Mattila teaches the method further comprising, using an eye tracker (eye tracker sensors 705, shown in fig. 7) to determine a position of a pupil (col. 18, lines 35-40, image sensor 2514, may be used to determine a direction of gaze) of a user's eye at an eyebox (note: eyebox is the area where your eye can be positioned to see the whole image through a display or optical device) of the near-eye display (fig. 1); and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil (col. 18, lines 35-40, image sensor 2514, may be used to determine a direction of gaze; col. 15, lines 60-65, the visor typically interfaces with other components of the HMD device such as head-mounting/retention systems and other subsystems including sensors, power management, controllers, etc.), switching the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position (col. 22, lines 59-68, the HMD device further comprises an eye tracker that is operatively coupled to the IR illumination source and the sensors, the eye tracker configured to control the IR illumination source and the sensors to generate glints and capture images of the glints for eye tracking. In another, illumination source to generate a temporally or spatially variable configurable pattern of IR points sources.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Bradski with using an eye tracker to determine a position of a pupil of a user's eye at an eyebox of the near-eye display; and, responsive to the determined position of the pupil, switching the angular distribution of diffraction efficiency to increase an amount of the image light illuminating the pupil at the determined position of Mattila, for the purpose of controlling the illumination on the eye by tracking the eye (col. 22, 50-68 and col. 18, lines 35-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 12-17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not disclose the claimed pupil-replication lightguide specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the out-coupling grating structure comprises a plurality of diffraction gratings having different local slant angles of grating fringes, wherein the diffraction gratings are switchable between the high-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out-coupled from the slab is above a first threshold, and the low-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out- coupled from the slab is below a second threshold lower than the first threshold.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 3, is objected to for the same reason as claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, is objected to for the same reason as claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, is objected to for the same reason as claim 4.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, is objected to for the same reason as claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, is objected to for the same reason as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose the claimed near-eye display specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the out-coupling grating structure comprises a plurality of diffraction gratings having different local slant angles of grating fringes, wherein the diffraction gratings are switchable between the high-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out-coupled from the slab is above a first threshold, and the low-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out-coupled from the slab is below a second threshold lower than the first threshold.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, is objected to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 14, is objected to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, is objected to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 16, is objected to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, is objected to for the same reason as claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as the specific steps in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the switching of the angular distribution of the out-coupling efficiency comprises switching a plurality of diffraction gratings having different local slant angles of grating fringes, wherein the diffraction gratings are switched between the high-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out- coupled from the slab is above a first threshold, and the low-efficiency state, in which a percentage of the image light out-coupled from the slab is below a second threshold lower than the first threshold.”
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 HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 01/02/25