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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/13/2025. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 18 are amended, and claims 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 15-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the backside cladding layer has a second thickness that is less than an additional thickness of the eyeward side cladding layer” while further limited by the base claim “the eyeward side cladding layer … has … a first thickness, the backside cladding layer …has …a second thickness; …the first thickness is greater than a second thickness, and the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index”. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. There is no reasonable interpretation of “additional thickness” as the term is relative and the claim does not specify a reference by which to set the metes and bounds. The claim requires the first thickness to be greater than the second thickness and it is unclear if Claim 4 further limits thickness. The original disclosure lacks specification of an additional backside cladding layer and therefore this claim is understood to be duplicative and to not further limit the base claim.
Claims 15 and 19 recites “the illumination layer further comprises: a second cladding layer … has a second thickness that is less than the thickness of the eyeward side cladding layer.” when base claims already require a second cladding layer so-limited captured in the claim. Further, Claim 20 recites “the illumination layer further comprises: a second cladding layer … the second cladding layer has a refractive index that is greater than a refractive index of the first cladding layer” when base claims already require a second cladding layer so-limited captured in the claim. The original disclosure lacks specification of an additional backside cladding layer and therefore this claim is understood to be duplicative and to not further limit the base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4, 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 substantially repeats the new and amended limitations of base Claim 18 regarding the second cladding layer and therefore does not further limit the invention. As noted in the rejections above, Claims 4, 15, and 19-20 substantially duplicate claim requirements directed to a second (backside) cladding layer without further limiting the apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1,4, 7, 8, 10, 11-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/017591 to Goto et al. (hereinafter Goto) in view of US 5748825 to Rockwell (hereinafter Rockwell). US PG Pub. 2021/0274137 used as an English-language translation.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 18-20, Goto discloses an optical assembly (Fig. 25; [0157]-[0174]), comprising: an eyeward (+Z, Fig. 25) and a backside (-Z, Fig. 25); a dimming layer (photochromic layer 211, Fig. 25; [0157]-[0174]) disposed on the an optical path between the eyeward side and the backside (Fig. 25; [0157]-[0174]); and an illumination layer (light guiding layer 214 has a high refractive index layer 215, Fig. 25; [0157]-[0174]) positioned on the optical path between the eyeward side and the dimming layer, wherein the illumination layer includes: an eyeward side cladding layer (first low refractive index layer 216, Fig. 25), a core layer (a high refractive index layer 215, Fig. 25), and a backside layer (a second low refractive index layer 217, Fig. 25), wherein: the eyeward side cladding layer is disposed on a first surface of the core layer and has a first refractive index and a first thickness first low refractive index layer 216, Fig. 25), the backside cladding layer is disposed on a second surface of the core layer and has a second refractive index and a second thickness (a second low refractive index layer 217, Fig. 25); and the core layer has a third refractive index (a high refractive index layer 215, Fig. 25).
Goto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the third refractive index is greater than each of the first refractive index and the second refractive index, the first thickness is greater than a second thickness, and the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index.
Rockwell discloses an eyeward side cladding layer (“PVDF and PMMA blends may be used to form a low-cost, low-index cladding material… with a low index of refraction when mixed in ratios of 40% or more of PMMA. This copolymer system may be used in the cladding 3”; col. 15, ll. 10-15), a core layer (core 4, Fig. 5), and a backside layer (“a thin, low index intermediate cladding 11”, Fig. 5), wherein: the third refractive index is greater than each of the first refractive index and the second refractive index (col. 5, ln. 49-col. 6, ln. 25).
Rockwell does not explicitly disclose relative thicknesses and refractive indexes of the cladding layers, however Rockwell discloses the thickness and index are critical design parameters used to effectuate leakage of an evanescent field out of the core into a preferred direction (col. 5, ln. 49-col. 6, ln. 25).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thinner cladding with comparatively higher refractive index as taught by Rockwell with the system as disclosed by Goto. The motivation would have been to allow guided light to extend into additional optic layers (e.g. electro-optic layers or photochromic layers).
Regarding claims 4, 15, 19, Goto discloses backside cladding layer is disposed on the second surface of the core layer between the core layer and the dimming layer, wherein the backside cladding layer has a second thickness that is less than the an additional thickness of the eyeward side cladding layer (see Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Goto discloses at least one absorption layer disposed on the optical path between the eyeward side and the backside to absorb light (UV absorbing layer 212, Fig. 25; [0160]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 8, Goto discloses at least one illuminator coupled to an edge of the illumination layer, wherein the at least one illuminator is configured to selectively emit light (excitation light source 220; [0157]-[0174]).
Regarding claim 10, Goto discloses the light comprises non-visible light, ultraviolet light, infrared light, or violet light ([0160]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 11, Goto discloses a display layer (reflective layer 13, Fig. 25) disposed on the optical path between the eyeward side of the optical assembly and the dimming layer, wherein the display layer is configured to direct visible display light toward the eyeward side (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7; [0074]-[0080]).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Goto discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 7; [0044]-[0064]), comprising: a frame (Fig. 7; [0044]-[0064]); and an optical assembly secured within the frame, wherein the optical assembly is limited as in Claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Goto discloses a display layer disposed on the optical path between the eyeward side of the optical assembly and the dimming layer, wherein the display layer is configured to direct visible display light toward the eyeward side (“device 10 may include a display unit such as display 26U for producing image light 82”, Fig. 6; [0044]-[0064]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Rockwell as applied to claim 4, further in view of US Pat. No. Pat. No. 10,254,454 to Klug et al. (hereinafter Klug).
Regarding claim 5, Goto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the backside cladding layer is in the range of one to ten microns.
Klug discloses the thickness of the backside cladding layer is in the range of one to ten microns (“Inkjet technology is advantageously capable of providing thin layers, for example between about 10 nm and 1 micron; or between about 10 nm and about 10 microns in thickness and can reduce waste in comparison with other techniques such as spin coating”; col. 16, ln. 3-col. 17, ln. 2 & col. 18, ll. 25-col. 19, ln. 17).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thin cladding as taught by Klug with the system as disclosed by Goto. The motivation would have been to reduce waste (col. 16, ln. 3-col. 17, ln. 2 & col. 18, ll. 25-col. 19, ln. 17).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Rockwell n view as applied to claim 8, further in view of CN 205942162 to Wu (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 9, Goto discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a reflective coating disposed on the edge of the illumination layer, wherein the reflective coating is configured to reflect the evanescent activation light within the dimming layer.
Wu discloses a reflective coating (reflective coating 5, Fig. 1) disposed on the edge of the illumination layer (light guide substrate 21, Fig. 1), wherein the reflective coating is configured to reflect the evanescent activation light within the dimming layer (photochromic layer 22, Fig. 1; “the light guide substrate 21 and the reflective layer 5 can make the ultraviolet ultraviolet rays emitted by the light source 3 to the light guide substrate 21 for reflecting conduction, and the conduction process 22 generating reaction of the photochromic material, and the dimming device 1 obtain the dimming effect of changing color or changing the light transmittance”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reflective coating on an edge as taught by Wu with the system as disclosed by Goto. The motivation would have been to promote light coupling to the photochromic layer for dimming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872