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 .
The instant application having Application No. 17/761,002 filed on 3/16/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 2/3/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 1 and 15, regarding Blomstedt (WO 2019122529 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding Oh (US 20180275350 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oh does not teach “an optical device with a second waveguide being configured to couple a third angular range of … incident light, the third angular range including angles between [a] first angular range and [a] second angular range, the first and second angular ranges being non-overlapping”.
Examiner argues that Oh was not used to teach the limitation “an optical device with a second waveguide being configured to couple a third angular range of … incident light, the third angular range including angles between [a] first angular range and [a] second angular range, the first and second angular ranges being non-overlapping”, but instead the primary reference Simmonds in combination with Yeoh discloses the limitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Shramkova (US 12326562 B2), in view of Simmonds (GB 2493846 A), and further in view of Yeoh (US 20180180817 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Shramkova are obvious over the claims of the current application.
Instant Application
US 12326562 B2
1. An optical device comprising:
a first waveguide having a first diffractive in-coupler, the first diffractive in-coupler being configured to couple into the first waveguide a first angular range and a second angular range of incident light, …, and to transmit at least a portion of the incident light not coupled into the first waveguide; and
a second waveguide having a second diffractive in-coupler, the second diffractive in- coupler being configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light transmitted by the first diffractive in-coupler, …
1. An optical system comprising:
a first waveguide, …;
a second waveguide, configured to receive a first portion of the light, transmitted to the second waveguide by the first waveguide;
…;
the first waveguide having a first transmissive diffractive in-coupler (DG1) at the input region of the optical system, for diffracting, from the light, blue light of a first incidence angle range and for diffracting, from the light, green light of a third incidence angle range to a first diffractive out-coupler (DG6) in the output region of the optical system, and to pass-through, to the second waveguide of the optical system, from the light, …; and
the second waveguide having a second transmissive diffractive in-coupler (DG2) for diffracting the blue light of the second incidence angle range received from the first waveguide, …
Regarding claim 1, Shramkova teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, however Shramkova does not teach the first and second angular ranges being non-overlapping, the second waveguide being configured to couple a third angular range of the incident light, the third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range.
Simmonds teaches the first (46 “second range of field angles”) and second (44 “second range of field angles”) angular ranges being non-overlapping (see Figure 2, 44 and 46 are non-overlapping), the second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”) being configured to couple a third angular range of the incident light (OTa “image-bearing light from the first range of field angles”, page 7, lines 20-22, Figure 2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Shramkova modified by the first and second angular ranges being non-overlapping and the second waveguide being configured to couple a third angular range of the incident light, as taught by Simmonds, in order to allow the image output from the waveguide assembly to be viewed over a larger range of field angles (last paragraph of page 3 – first paragraph of page 4).
Yeoh teaches a third angular range (see examiner’s markup of Figure 13B) including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range (paragraph 0073 states “to enable angle-insensitive operation for the optical filter 1360, it may be desirable that the rising edge of the transmittance/reflectance curve stay below the center wavelength of red image light (e.g., 635 nm) and above the center wavelength of blue image light (e.g., 462 nm) for a predetermined range of angle of incidence (e.g., from about zero degree to about 45 degrees)”, examiner’s markup of Figure 13B shows that the angular range of light is symmetric about a reference line with no gap, therefore showing that a third angular range may exist between a first angular range and a second angular range which do not overlap. Additionally, Figure 13B shows that the third angular range transmits a portion of the incident light not coupled into a first waveguide (1310 “first waveguide”) into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”), and a portion of the incident light not coupled into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”) into a third waveguide (1370 “third waveguide”)).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 13B of Yeoh pointing out a third angular range and a reference line.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Shramkova modified by a third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range, as taught by Yeoh, in order to separate different wavelength ranges of light and output each individual wavelength range of light with enhanced brightness and contrast (paragraph 0065).
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (GB 2493846 A), and further in view of Yeoh (US 20180180817 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simmonds discloses an optical device, in at least Figure 2, comprising:
a first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) having a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) being configured to couple into the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”) a first angular range (46 “second range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second angular range (44 “first range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), of incident light, the first (46 “second range of field angles”) and second (44 “second range of field angles”) angular ranges being non-overlapping (see Figure 2, 44 and 46 are non-overlapping), and to transmit at least a portion of the incident light not coupled into the first waveguide (page 7, lines 8-12); and
a second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), having a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), the second diffractive in- coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”) being configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light (OTa “image-bearing light from the first range of field angles”, page 7, lines 20-22, Figure 2) transmitted by the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 7, lines 8-12), the second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”) being configured to couple a third angular range of the incident light (OTa “image-bearing light from the first range of field angles”, page 7, lines 20-22, Figure 2).
However, Simmonds does not disclose the third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range.
Yeoh teaches a third angular range (see examiner’s markup of Figure 13B) including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range (paragraph 0073 states “to enable angle-insensitive operation for the optical filter 1360, it may be desirable that the rising edge of the transmittance/reflectance curve stay below the center wavelength of red image light (e.g., 635 nm) and above the center wavelength of blue image light (e.g., 462 nm) for a predetermined range of angle of incidence (e.g., from about zero degree to about 45 degrees)”, examiner’s markup of Figure 13B shows that the angular range of light is symmetric about a reference line with no gap, therefore showing that a third angular range may exist between a first angular range and a second angular range which do not overlap. Additionally, Figure 13B shows that the third angular range transmits a portion of the incident light not coupled into a first waveguide (1310 “first waveguide”) into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”), and a portion of the incident light not coupled into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”) into a third waveguide (1370 “third waveguide”)).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 13B of Yeoh pointing out a third angular range and a reference line.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range, as taught by Yeoh, in order to separate different wavelength ranges of light and output each individual wavelength range of light with enhanced brightness and contrast (paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses the first (46 “second range of field angles”), second (44 “first range of field angles”), and third angular ranges together span a field of view of greater than sixty degrees (page 14, lines 6-9 state “The system input efficiency spans over total field of view combining both the first and second range of field angles from -33° to + 33° degrees…” This results in a field of view of 66 degrees.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) is configured to couple incident light in the first angular range (44 “first range of field angles”) to a negative direction in the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, the light of 44 “first range of field angles” and 46 “second range of field angles” inside 30 “first waveguide” are in opposite directions. Assume that the direction of light in 44 “first range of field angles” is negative inside of 30 “first waveguide”, then the direction of light in 46 “second range of field angles” must be positive inside 30 “first waveguide”) and to couple incident light in the second angular range (46 “second range of field angles”) to a positive direction in the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, the light of 44 “first range of field angles” and 46 “second range of field angles” inside 30 “first waveguide” are in opposite directions. Assume that the direction of light in 44 “first range of field angles” is negative inside of 30 “first waveguide”, then the direction of light in 46 “second range of field angles” must be positive inside 30 “first waveguide”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose the first (32 “first input diffraction grating”) and second (42 “second input diffraction grating”) diffractive in-couplers each have a grating pitch greater than 625nm.
Thus, Simmonds discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second diffractive in-couplers each have a grating pitch greater than 625nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second diffractive in-couplers with grating pitches greater than 625 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the pitch of a diffractive in-coupler is an art recognized results effective variable in that it represents the distance between adjacent grooves in a diffractive grating and determines the diffractive orders of scattered light. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the grating pitch because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because changing the grating pitch affects the diffraction efficiency, as taught by Blomstedt (page 7, paragraph 2, Figures 3A, 3B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose the second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”) has a second grating pitch, d2, that is between 1.2 times and 1.4 times as great as a first grating pitch, d1, of the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”).
Thus, Simmonds discloses the claimed invention except for the second diffractive in-coupler has a second grating pitch, d2, that is between 1.2 times and 1.4 times as great as a first grating pitch, d1, of the first diffractive in-coupler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose d1 and d2 such that d2 is between 1.2 times and 1.4 times as great as d1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the pitch of a diffractive in-coupler is an art recognized results effective variable in that it represents the distance between adjacent grooves in a diffractive grating and determines the diffractive orders of scattered light. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the grating pitch because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because changing the grating pitch affects the diffraction efficiency, as taught by Blomstedt (page 7, paragraph 2, Figures 3A, 3B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses an image generator (16 “image generator”) operative to direct light representing an image onto the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 2);
a first diffractive out-coupler (48 “first output diffraction grating”) on the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 7, lines 13-19); and
a second diffractive out-coupler (50 “second output diffraction grating”) on the second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”, page 7, lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 15, Simmonds discloses a method comprising:
directing incident light on a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) of a first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3);
coupling, by the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”), a first angular range (44 “first range of field angles”) and a second angular range (46 “second range of field angles”) of the incident light into the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3), the first (44 “first range of field angles”) and second (46 “second range of field angles”) angular ranges being non-overlapping (see Figure 2, 44 and 46 are non-overlapping);
transmitting, through the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) to a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”) of a second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”), at least a portion of the incident light not coupled into the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 7, lines 8-12); and
coupling, by the second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”), a third angular range of the incident light (OTa “image-bearing light from the first range of field angles”, page 7, lines 20-22, Figure 2).
However, Simmonds does not disclose the third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range.
Yeoh teaches a third angular range (see examiner’s markup of Figure 13B) including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range (paragraph 0073 states “to enable angle-insensitive operation for the optical filter 1360, it may be desirable that the rising edge of the transmittance/reflectance curve stay below the center wavelength of red image light (e.g., 635 nm) and above the center wavelength of blue image light (e.g., 462 nm) for a predetermined range of angle of incidence (e.g., from about zero degree to about 45 degrees)”, examiner’s markup of Figure 13B shows that the angular range of light is symmetric about a reference line with no gap, therefore showing that a third angular range may exist between a first angular range and a second angular range which do not overlap. Additionally, Figure 13B shows that the third angular range transmits a portion of the incident light not coupled into a first waveguide (1310 “first waveguide”) into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”), and a portion of the incident light not coupled into a second waveguide (1340 “second waveguide”) into a third waveguide (1370 “third waveguide”)).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 13B of Yeoh pointing out a third angular range and a reference line.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Simmonds modified by a third angular range including angles between the first angular range and the second angular range, as taught by Yeoh, in order to separate different wavelength ranges of light and output each individual wavelength range of light with enhanced brightness and contrast (paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Simmonds further discloses the first (46 “second range of field angles”), second (44 “first range of field angles”), and third angular ranges together span a field of view of greater than sixty degrees (page 14, lines 6-9 state “The system input efficiency spans over total field of view combining both the first and second range of field angles from -33° to + 33° degrees…” This results in a field of view of 66 degrees.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Simmonds further discloses the first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) couples incident light in the first angular range (44 “first range of field angles”) to a negative direction in the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, the light of 44 “first range of field angles” and 46 “second range of field angles” inside 30 “first waveguide” are in opposite directions. Assume that the direction of light in 44 “first range of field angles” is negative inside of 30 “first waveguide”, then the direction of light in 46 “second range of field angles” must be positive inside 30 “first waveguide”) and couples incident light in the second angular range (46 “second range of field angles”) to a positive direction in the first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, the light of 44 “first range of field angles” and 46 “second range of field angles” inside 30 “first waveguide” are in opposite directions. Assume that the direction of light in 44 “first range of field angles” is negative inside of 30 “first waveguide”, then the direction of light in 46 “second range of field angles” must be positive inside 30 “first waveguide”).
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (GB 2493846 A), in view of Yeoh (US 20180180817 A1), and further in view of Oh (US 20180275350 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle (44 “first range of field angles”) in the second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”, Figure 2), but Simmonds does not disclose the third angular range comprises a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
to -
Θ
W
G
2
C
, where, for at least one wavelength λ of the incident light, -
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle in the second waveguide and
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a positive critical angle in the second waveguide.
Oh teaches the third angular range comprises a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1216 “transmitted light”, Figures 12A, 12B) to
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1224 “transmitted light”, Figures 12A, 12B), where, for at least one wavelength λ of the incident light, -
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle (1236 “diffracted light”, paragraph 0122 states “diffracted light 1236 propagates in along the x-axis under total internal reflection (TIR) until the light reaches the optical element 1212 and exits therethrough”, Figure 12B) in the second waveguide (1004 “second waveguide”) and
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a positive critical angle (1232 “diffracted light”, paragraph 0121 states “diffracted light 1232 propagates in along the x-axis under total internal reflection (TIR) until the light reaches the optical element 1212 and exits therethrough”, Figure 12B in the second waveguide (1004 “second waveguide”, paragraph 0115-0117, 0122-0124, Figures 12A, 12B. Figure 12B shows a third angular range in first waveguide 1004 between 1216 and 1224. For a second waveguide that is the same as the first waveguide, the third angular range would be the same since the third angular range is the range that light transmits out of the waveguide and it should be the same for both the first waveguide and the second waveguide. Additionally, Figure 4 of Applicant’s specification shows the same concept as Oh disclosed in Figure 12B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a third angular range comprise a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
to
Θ
W
G
2
C
as taught by Oh because in order for total internal reflection to occur, the incident light needs to exist within the positive and negative critical angles.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Simmonds, Yeoh, and Oh disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Simmonds further discloses a first angular range (46 “second range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second angular range (44 “first range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2”), however Simmonds does not disclose the first angular range comprises a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
and the second angular range comprises a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
.
Oh teaches the first angular range (1216 “visible light”) comprises a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1224 “transmitted light”) and the second angular range (1224 “visible light”) comprises a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1226 “transmitted light”, paragraphs 0099, 0105, 0115-0117, 0122, 0136 Figures 10-12B).
Oh states in paragraph 0077 that “The light then propagates at an angle which will result in TIR within the respective waveguide 670, 680, 690.” Because the first angular range is in the negative direction in the first waveguide, the transmitted light will need to be at a smaller angle than the incident light. The second angular range is in the positive direction in the first waveguide, so the transmitted light will need to be reflected at an angle greater than the incident light (paragraph 0077, Figures 9A, 12A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a first angular range comprise a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
and the second angular range comprise a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
as taught by Oh in order to allow for total internal reflection to occur within the second waveguide (paragraph 0077, Figures 9A, 12A).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Simmonds further discloses an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle (44 “first range of field angles”) in the second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”, Figure 2), but Simmonds does not disclose the third angular range comprises a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
to -
Θ
W
G
2
C
, where, for at least one wavelength λ of the incident light, -
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle in the second waveguide and
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a positive critical angle in the second waveguide.
Oh teaches the third angular range comprises a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1216 “transmitted light”, Figures 12A, 12B) to
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1224 “transmitted light”, Figures 12A, 12B), where, for at least one wavelength λ of the incident light, -
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a negative critical angle (1236 “diffracted light”, paragraph 0122 states “diffracted light 1236 propagates in along the x-axis under total internal reflection (TIR) until the light reaches the optical element 1212 and exits therethrough”, Figure 12B) in the second waveguide (1004 “second waveguide”) and
Θ
W
G
2
C
is an angle of the incident light that is coupled to a positive critical angle (1232 “diffracted light”, paragraph 0121 states “diffracted light 1232 propagates in along the x-axis under total internal reflection (TIR) until the light reaches the optical element 1212 and exits therethrough”, Figure 12B in the second waveguide (1004 “second waveguide”, paragraph 0115-0117, 0122-0124, Figures 12A, 12B. Figure 12B shows a third angular range in first waveguide 1004 between 1216 and 1224. For a second waveguide that is the same as the first waveguide, the third angular range would be the same since the third angular range is the range that light transmits out of the waveguide and it should be the same for both the first waveguide and the second waveguide. Additionally, Figure 4 of Applicant’s specification shows the same concept as Oh disclosed in Figure 12B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a third angular range comprise a range of angles from -
Θ
W
G
2
C
to
Θ
W
G
2
C
as taught by Oh because in order for total internal reflection to occur, the incident light needs to exist within the positive and negative critical angles.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Simmonds, Yeoh, and Oh disclose all the limitations of claim 16 and Simmonds further discloses a first angular range (46 “second range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second angular range (44 “first range of field angles”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2”), however Simmonds does not disclose the first angular range comprises a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
and the second angular range comprises a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
.
Oh teaches the first angular range (1216 “visible light”) comprises a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1224 “transmitted light”) and the second angular range (1224 “visible light”) comprises a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
(1226 “transmitted light”, paragraphs 0099, 0105, 0115-0117, 0122, 0136 Figures 10-12B).
Oh states in paragraph 0077 that “The light then propagates at an angle which will result in TIR within the respective waveguide 670, 680, 690.” Because the first angular range is in the negative direction in the first waveguide, the transmitted light will need to be at a smaller angle than the incident light. The second angular range is in the positive direction in the first waveguide, so the transmitted light will need to be reflected at an angle greater than the incident light (paragraph 0077, Figures 9A, 12A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a first angular range comprise a range of angles less than -
Θ
W
G
2
C
and the second angular range comprise a range of angles greater than
Θ
W
G
2
C
as taught by Oh in order to allow for total internal reflection to occur within the second waveguide (paragraph 0077, Figures 9A, 12A).
Claims 6, 8-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (GB 2493846 A), in view of Yeoh (US 20180180817 A1), and further in view of Blomstedt (WO 2019122529 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose at least one of the first diffractive in-coupler and the second diffractive in-coupler is configured to couple light using second-order diffraction.
Blomstedt teaches a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”, page 6, lines 10-16) is configured to couple light using second-order diffraction (page 7, paragraph 4 states “In Fig. 3B, the grating is replaced with a large-period grating 32B, which is configured to diffract majority of light at band λ1 to diffraction order N3, at band λ2 to diffraction order N2 and at band λ3 to diffraction order N1, which all have essentially the same angle”). Blomstedt states in the last paragraph of page 7 that “the remaining orders (secondary diffraction orders) may be used to carry stray light, as determined in grating optimization, in order to maximize the power to the primary diffraction orders or to satisfy other design targets.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by coupling light a diffractive in-coupler using second order diffraction, as taught by Blomstedt, in order carry stray light in order to maximize the power to the primary diffraction orders or to satisfy other design targets (last paragraph of page 7).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose the first diffractive in-coupler has a first grating pitch, d1, and is configured to use a diffractive order M, and wherein d1/M is less than 380nm.
Blomstedt teaches a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”) has a first grating pitch (page 6, line 29 states “The feature size f can be e.g. 10 - 700 nm”), d1, and is configured to use a diffractive order M (page 7, paragraph 4 states “In Fig. 3B, the grating is replaced with a large-period grating 32B, which is configured to diffract majority of light at band λ1- to diffraction order N3, at band λ2 to diffraction order N2 and at band λ3 to diffraction order N1, which all have essentially the same angle”), and wherein d1/M is less than 380nm (if pitch is that the maximum value of d1 = 700 nm and the diffractive order M = 2, d1/M = 350 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range). The last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7 of Blomstedt states “Whereas a conventional small-period grating is capable of producing effectively only a single propagating diffraction order beam 22 at angle α for incident light 21, the present grating can diffract beams 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, ... in several propagating diffraction orders”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a diffractive in-coupler with a first grating pitch, d1, and diffractive order, M, to obtain d1/M = 350 which can be achieved by using d1 = 700 nm and M = 2, as taught by Blomstedt, in order to diffract beams of light in several propagating orders, including second order diffraction which can maximize power to primary diffraction orders or satisfy other design targets (last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7, last paragraph of page 7, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose the second diffractive in-coupler has a second grating pitch, d2, and is configured to use a diffractive order N, and wherein d2/N is less than 460nm.
Blomstedt teaches a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”) has a second grating pitch (page 6, line 29 states “The feature size f can be e.g. 10 - 700 nm”), d2, and is configured to use a diffractive order N (page 7, paragraph 4 states “In Fig. 3B, the grating is replaced with a large-period grating 32B, which is configured to diffract majority of light at band λ1- to diffraction order N3, at band λ2 to diffraction order N2 and at band λ3 to diffraction order N1, which all have essentially the same angle”), and wherein d2/N is less than 460nm (if pitch is that the maximum value of d2 = 700 nm and the diffractive order N = 2, d2/N = 350 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range). The last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7 of Blomstedt states “Whereas a conventional small-period grating is capable of producing effectively only a single propagating diffraction order beam 22 at angle α for incident light 21, the present grating can diffract beams 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, ... in several propagating diffraction orders.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a diffractive in-coupler with a second grating pitch, d2, and diffractive order, N, to obtain d2/N = 350 which can be achieved by using d2 = 700 nm and N = 2, as taught by Blomstedt, in order to diffract beams of light in several propagating orders, including second order diffraction which can maximize power to primary diffraction orders or satisfy other design targets (last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7, last paragraph of page 7, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose the first diffractive in-coupler has a first grating pitch, d1, where the first grating pitch is within 20% of 635nm; and the second diffractive in-coupler has a second grating pitch, d2, where the second grating pitch is within 20% of 822nm.
Blomstedt teaches a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”) has a first grating pitch (page 6, line 29 states “The feature size f can be e.g. 10 - 700 nm”), d1, where the first grating pitch is within 20% of 635nm (20% of 635nm spans the range of 508 nm to 762 nm, and pitch can be as high as d1 = 700 nm, d1 falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range); and
a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”) has a second grating pitch (page 6, line 29 states “The feature size f can be e.g. 10 - 700 nm”), d2, where the second grating pitch (page 6, line 29 states “The feature size f can be e.g. 10 - 700 nm”) is within 20% of 822nm (20% of 822 spans the range of 657 nm to 986 nm, and pitch can be as high as d2 = 700 nm, d2 falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
The last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7 of Blomstedt states “Whereas a conventional small-period grating is capable of producing effectively only a single propagating diffraction order beam 22 at angle α for incident light 21, the present grating can diffract beams 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, ... in several propagating diffraction orders.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a diffractive in-coupler with a grating pitch of within 20% of 635nm and a diffractive in-coupler with a grating pitch of within 20% of 822nm, as taught by Blomstedt, in order to diffract beams of light in several propagating orders, including second order diffraction which can maximize power to primary diffraction orders or satisfy other design targets (last paragraph of page 6 through the first paragraph of page 7, last paragraph of page 7, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and Simmonds further discloses a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) and a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), but does not disclose at least one of the first diffractive in-coupler and the second diffractive in-coupler is configured to couple light using second-order diffraction.
Blomstedt teaches a diffractive in-coupler (12 “in-coupling grating”, page 6, lines 10-16) couples light using second-order diffraction (page 7, paragraph 4 states “In Fig. 3B, the grating is replaced with a large-period grating 32B, which is configured to diffract majority of light at band λ1 to diffraction order N3, at band λ2 to diffraction order N2 and at band λ3 to diffraction order N1, which all have essentially the same angle”). Blomstedt states in the last paragraph of page 7 that “the remaining orders (secondary diffraction orders) may be used to carry stray light, as determined in grating optimization, in order to maximize the power to the primary diffraction orders or to satisfy other design targets.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by coupling light in a diffractive in-coupler using second order diffraction, as taught by Blomstedt, in order carry stray light in order to maximize the power to the primary diffraction orders or to satisfy other design targets (last paragraph of page 7).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (GB 2493846 A), in view of Yeoh (US 20180180817 A1), and further in view of Jones (US 20180052501 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a diffractive in-coupler (58 “diffraction region”) with a base pattern (last paragraph of page 12 states “the grating has a saw tooth profile”, Figure 6) however Simmonds does not disclose a base pattern with a U-shaped profile.
Jones teaches at least one of the first (690 “incoupling DOE”, paragraph 0270, Figure 13) and the second diffractive in-couplers (690 “incoupling DOE”, paragraph 0270, Figure 13) has a base pattern with a U-shaped profile (examiner’s markup of Figure 31B).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 31B of Jones, pointing out the U-shaped profile of the diffractive in-couplers:
PNG
media_image2.png
744
1143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jones states in paragraph 0342 “The second diffraction grating 3142 can be designed to have a second diffractive efficiency which may be different from the first diffraction efficiency. In some embodiments, the second diffraction grating 3142 can be designed to be less efficient than the first diffraction grating 3141. This can be accomplished by, for example, making the lines of the second diffraction grating 3142 shallower than those of the first diffraction grating, as shown in FIG. 31B” and “the second diffraction grating 1342 causes input rays of light to be re-directed”. Using a diffraction grating with a U-shaped profile can allow for different diffraction efficiencies and re-direction of light.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a diffractive in-coupler with a U-shaped profile as taught by Jones because it allows for a second diffractive efficiency and re-direction of scattered light.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Simmonds and Yeoh disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Simmonds further discloses a first waveguide (30 “first waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2) having a first diffractive in-coupler (32 “first input diffraction grating”) and a second waveguide (40 “second waveguide”, page 6, paragraph 3, Figure 2), having a second diffractive in-coupler (42 “second input diffraction grating”), however Simmonds does not disclose third waveguide having a third diffractive in-coupler configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the second diffractive in-coupler; and a fourth waveguide having a fourth diffractive in-coupler configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the third diffractive in-coupler.
Jones teaches a third waveguide (684 “waveguide”) having a third diffractive in-coupler (690 “incoupling DOE”) configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the second diffractive in-coupler (690 “incoupling DOE”, paragraph 0270 states “World light 144 may also permeate and transmit through stack 644, as each waveguide within stack 644 is at least partially transparent to permit rendering of augmented reality content in conjunction with natural perception of the real world environment”, Figure 13); and
a fourth waveguide (686 “waveguide”) having a fourth diffractive in-coupler (690 “incoupling DOE”) configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the third diffractive in-coupler (690 “incoupling DOE”, paragraph 0270 states “World light 144 may also permeate and transmit through stack 644, as each waveguide within stack 644 is at least partially transparent to permit rendering of augmented reality content in conjunction with natural perception of the real world environment”, Figure 13).
Jones states in paragraph 0270 “Each waveguide comprises a plurality of DOEs 680, 682, 684, 686, and 688 configured to diffract light through the respective planar waveguide and outcouple towards eye 58 to create the perception of augmented reality content across a field of view or at multiple depth planes” and “stack 664 comprises six waveguides, corresponding to two waveguides associated with a depth plane at each of a red, green, and blue wavelength of light.” Utilizing a stack of waveguides can allow for control over several different wavelengths of light.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Simmonds modified by a third waveguide having a third diffractive in-coupler configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the second diffractive in-coupler; and a fourth waveguide having a fourth diffractive in-coupler configured to couple at least a portion of the incident light that is not coupled by the third diffractive in-coupler as taught by Jones because using multiple waveguides allows for control over multiple wavelengths of light and causes the perception of augmented reality at multiple depth planes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872