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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/792,383 filed on July 12, 2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
The amended claims submitted January 27, 2026 in response to the office action mailed August 27, 2025 are under examination. Claims 1, 5-11 and 15-18 are pending. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are canceled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Many of the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-11 and 15-18 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. However, to the extent that the arguments may still pertain to the current rejection they will be answered hereafter.
Under the heading “Rejections of Claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 18 under 35 USC §102 from page 5 of 11 through line 11 of page 6 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Seeselberg teaches only one display not two displays. Although the examiner does not concede the propriety of the previous rejection, but purely to advance prosecution, the current rejections introduce Kimmel which explicitly teaches that a single display panel displaying left and right images or multiple display panels arrayed together can be utilized as the display input to input gratings of a waveguide based heads up display.
In the third paragraph of page 6 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the two images one with TE-polarized light diffracted into a +1 diffraction order and one with TM-polarized light diffracted into a -1 diffraction order are not a first and a second image. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, in the first paragraph of page 7 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant acknowledges that these two images are in fact two images exiting from two different paths and received by the two different eyes of the user. Thus, it is evident that the applicant understands that these are two images. Therefor, to the best understanding of the examiner, it appears that this argument is premised on the previous argument that Seeselberg fails to teach two displays, and thus is arguing that even though the two images travel in two different directions to two different eyes that they don’t qualify as two images because they were made by a single display. Given that this alleged deficiency is remedied by Kimmel, this argument is moot.
The arguments in the last paragraph of page 6 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks that Seeselberg fails to anticipate the claim including such limitations as “a first display configured to generate a first image and a second display configured to generate a second image… with the first display and the second display being arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis” also appear to predicated upon their argument that Seesselberg fails to teach two displays. This argument has been rendered moot by the addition of the teaching of Kimmel.
The argument in the first paragraph of page 7 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks is again reiterating the applicant’s position that Seeselberg fails to teach two displays, which has been addressed with Kimmel. Notably, however, the applicant admits that there are two images that exit the waveguide of Seeselberg. The allegation that two images received by two different eyes do not constitute two images when they enter the input coupler and are directed in opposite directions is so untenable that it must be the case that the applicant is merely reiterating their position that Seeselberg fails to teach two displays.
From the second paragraph of page 7 of 11 through the second paragraph of page 9 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the other rejections suffer from the same deficiency that was argued for claim 1. The arguments with respect to claim 1 have been addressed above.
In the section “Response to Advisory Action” on pages 9-12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant addresses the points made by the examiner in the advisory action mailed December 4, 2025. These responses are all directed to the question of whether Seesselberg does or does not teach two adjacent displays on either side of the optical axis. The first question of whether or not Seesselberg teaches two displays has been remedied by the addition of Kimmel. That the two images are emitted by two display portions arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis is not disputed by applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 27, 2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejection of the previous office action has been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) in view of Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel).
Regarding claim 1, Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “An apparatus (display unit 1) comprising:
at least one waveguide (transparent planar plate 6) having an in-coupler (injection element 8);
a first display [portion] (portion of the display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) configured to generate a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) and a second display [portion] (portion of the display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22) configured to generate a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”); and
a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display [portions] arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye).”
However, Seeselberg does not discuss the right and left portions of the display as explicitly constituting a first display and a second display.
Kimmel teaches “An apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one waveguide (light guide arrangement 100) having an in-coupler (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102);
a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) and a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”); and
a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in- coupler (see Fig. 5), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”) … and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”) … the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Seeselberg, teaches an apparatus which differs from the claimed apparatus by the substitution of the component of a single display having left and right portions on either side of the optical axis of the lens with the component of two display panels providing the left and right images
(2) the display arrangement comprising multiple display panels and its function were known in the art in view of Kimmel.
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted two adjacent display panels for the two adjacent display panel portions, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been the ability to control the two panels more independently;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a display arrangement having two display panels as taught by Kimmel for a display arrangement having left and right display portions in the device of Seeselberg and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Kimmel teaches both options as alternatives to one another, where how such a modification should be done must be within ordinary skill in the art given that it did not merit a depiction in a drawing.
Note that the combination of limitations “the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis” are considered to be taught by the combination of references. Seesselberg teaches that the display portion that produces the first image and the display portion that produces the second image are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis, and the modification above serves to replace these display panel portions with two display panels. Thus, when taken in combination the first and second displays of the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claim 6, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical axis does not intersect either the first display or the second display (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display, thus when Seesselberg is modified in view of Kimmel to have two displays rather than two display portions, these two displays will also not be intersected by the optical axis of the lens system).”
Regarding claim 11, Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) with a first display [portion] (display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) and a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”) with a second display [portion] (display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22);
and using a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037])onto an in-coupler (injection element 8) of a waveguide (transparent planar plate 6), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye).”
However, Seeselberg does not discuss the right and left portions of the display as explicitly constituting a first display and a second display.
Kimmel teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) and a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.); and
using a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 5) onto an in-coupler of a waveguide (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b), …
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”)… and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”)… the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Seeselberg, teaches an apparatus which differs from the claimed apparatus by the substitution of the component of a single display having left and right portions on either side of the optical axis of the lens with the component of two display panels providing the left and right images
(2) the display arrangement comprising multiple display panels and its function were known in the art in view of Kimmel.
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted two adjacent display panels for the two adjacent display panel portions, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been the ability to control the two panels more independently;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a display arrangement having two display panels as taught by Kimmel for a display arrangement having left and right display portions in the device of Seeselberg and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Kimmel teaches both options as alternatives to one another, where how such a modification should be done must be within ordinary skill in the art given that it did not merit a depiction in a drawing.
Note that the combination of limitations “the first display and the second display being arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis” are considered to be taught by the combination of references. Seesselberg teaches that the display portion that produces the first image and the display portion that produces the second image are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis, and the modification above serves to replace these display panel portions with two display panels. Thus, when taken in combination the first and second displays of the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claim 16, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The method of claim 11, wherein the optical axis does not intersect either the first display or the second display (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display, thus when Seesselberg is modified in view of Kimmel to have two displays rather than two display portions, these two displays will also not be intersected by the optical axis of the lens system).”
Regarding claim 18, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Claims 1, 6-7, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins teaches “An apparatus (optical waveguide 100) comprising:
at least one waveguide (bulk-substrate 106) having an in-coupler (input-coupler 112);
a first display (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine”) configured to generate a first image (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine may provide light of a first polarization… The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “a positive first order diffraction of polarized image light”) and a second display (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine”) configured to generate a second image (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine may provide light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization … The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “at a second time, a negative first order diffraction of polarized image light”); and
a lens system (collimating lens 208) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (paragraph [0051]: “The collimating lens 208 is arranged to receive a diverging display image from the image former 206, to collimate the display image, and to direct the collimated image toward the input-coupler 112 of the waveguide 100”), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of collimating lens 208)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) using a positive diffractive order (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).) using a negative diffractive order (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).”
However, Robbins fails to explicitly teach “with the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.”
Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “An apparatus (display unit 1) comprising:
at least one waveguide (transparent planar plate 6) having an in-coupler (injection element 8);
a first display [portion] (portion of the display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) configured to generate a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) and a second display [portion] (portion of the display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22) configured to generate a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”); and
a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display [portions] arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye).”
Kimmel teaches “An apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one waveguide (light guide arrangement 100) having an in-coupler (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102);
a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) and a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”); and
a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in- coupler (see Fig. 5), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”) … and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”) … the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
Robbins teaches that the apparatus may have either a single display or two displays (see paragraph [0099]).
Seesselberg teaches that a first display portion configured to generate a first image and a second display portion configured to generate a second image should be arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis of the lens system.
Kimmel teaches that a display apparatus may be made of one or more display panels.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two displays of Robbins as two display panels as taught by Kimmel on opposite sides of the optical axis of the collimation lens as taught by Seesselberg. One would have been motivated to choose such a configuration because both Robbins and Kimmel teach that there could be either one display, or two displays, one for each image (see Robbins paragraph [0099] and Kimmel Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]), Robbins is silent regarding how the two displays would be arranged, and Seesselberg shows that one appropriate configuration for the generation of first and second images is to have the first display portion and the second display portion arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claim 11, Robbins teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine may provide light of a first polarization… The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “a positive first order diffraction of polarized image light”) on a first display (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine”) and a second image (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine may provide light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization … The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “at a second time, a negative first order diffraction of polarized image light”) on a second display (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine”);
and using a lens system (collimating lens 208), directing the first image and the second image (paragraph [0051]: “The collimating lens 208 is arranged to receive a diverging display image from the image former 206, to collimate the display image, and to direct the collimated image toward the input-coupler 112 of the waveguide 100”) onto an in-coupler (input-coupler 112) of a waveguide (bulk-substrate 106), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of collimating lens 208)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) using a positive diffractive order (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).) using a negative diffractive order (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).”
However, Robbins fails to explicitly teach “with the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.”
Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) with a first display [portion] (display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) and a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”) with a second display [portion] (display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22);
and using a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037])onto an in-coupler (injection element 8) of a waveguide (transparent planar plate 6), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display [portion] and the second display [portion] being arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye).”
Kimmel teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) and a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.); and
using a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 5) onto an in-coupler of a waveguide (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b), …
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”)… and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”)… the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
Robbins teaches that the apparatus may have either a single display or two displays (see paragraph [0099]).
Seesselberg teaches that a first display portion configured to generate a first image and a second display portion configured to generate a second image should be arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis of the lens system.
Kimmel teaches that a display apparatus may be made of one or more display panels.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two displays of Robbins as two display panels as taught by Kimmel on opposite sides of the optical axis of the collimation lens as taught by Seesselberg. One would have been motivated to choose such a configuration because both Robbins and Kimmel teach that there could be either one display, or two displays, one for each image (see Robbins paragraph [0099] and Kimmel Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]), Robbins is silent regarding how the two displays would be arranged, and Seesselberg shows that one appropriate configuration for the generation of first and second images is to have the first display portion and the second display portion arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and the method of claim 11. However, Robbins fails to explicitly teach “wherein the optical axis does not intersect either the first display or the second display.”
Seesselberg teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical axis does not intersect either the first display or the second display (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display).”
Thus the combination of Robbins, Seesselberg and Kimmel introduced for claims 1 and 11 above, further teaches “wherein the optical axis does not intersect either the first display or the second display” because Kimmel teaches substituting two display panels for one display panel, and Seesselberg teaches how to arrange the two portions of the display one either side of the optical axis to generate the first and second images.
Regarding claim 7, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Robbins further teaches “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (output-coupler 116) and at least one eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along at least a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).”
Regarding claim 17, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The method of claim 11,” and Robbins further teaches “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out- coupler (output-coupler 116), at least a first eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]), and at least a second eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114b, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).”
Regarding claim 18, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Robbins – Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Robbins -Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, however, Robbins fails to teach “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one.”
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claims 5 and 15) “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one (pages 25-28, e.g. page 26 line 20 to page 27 line 4: “construction of the grating's profile such that for wavelengths of, say, 450-470 nm the dominant diffraction order is the third order, and for wavelengths of, say, 520-640 nm the dominant diffraction order is the second, results in a maximal difference between the mid diffraction angles which is about 48.4 - 34.7 = 13.7. This difference is significantly smaller that the maximal difference of 20° which is attainable when only first diffraction order is allowed.).”
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
WO 977 also teaches (page 16 lines 8-10): “In some embodiments of the present invention, the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings having a periodic profile selected such that all diffraction orders m satisfying |m| > 1 are suppressed.”
Robbins teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the method of claim 15, except for using the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler to couple the light into the waveguide. WO 977 teaches that one can use the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler (page 16 lines 8-10), but that dominant coupling into higher diffraction orders is preferred because it reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra when making a multicolor image, thus improving the full color images (WO 977 pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the input coupler as taught by WO 977 such that the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one as taught by WO 977, in the apparatus and method of Robbins for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) in view of Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel)as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, however, Seesselberg fails to teach “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one.”
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claims 5 and 15) “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one (pages 25-28, e.g. page 26 line 20 to page 27 line 4: “construction of the grating's profile such that for wavelengths of, say, 450-470 nm the dominant diffraction order is the third order, and for wavelengths of, say, 520-640 nm the dominant diffraction order is the second, results in a maximal difference between the mid diffraction angles which is about 48.4 - 34.7 = 13.7. This difference is significantly smaller that the maximal difference of 20° which is attainable when only first diffraction order is allowed.).”
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
WO 977 also teaches (page 16 lines 8-10): “In some embodiments of the present invention, the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings having a periodic profile selected such that all diffraction orders m satisfying |m| > 1 are suppressed.”
Seesselberg teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the method of claim 15, except for using the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler to couple the light into the waveguide. WO 977 teaches that one can use the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler (page 16 lines 8-10), but that dominant coupling into higher diffraction orders is preferred because it reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra when making a multicolor image, thus improving the full color images (WO 977 pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the input coupler as taught by WO 977 such that the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one as taught by WO 977, in the apparatus and method of Seesselberg for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomstedt et al. US 2021/0109347 A1 (hereafter Blomstedt).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Robbins -Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Robbins further teaches (claim 8) “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (output-coupler 116) and a first … eye pupil expander (first intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A), the first … eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031])” and (claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises a third … eye pupil expander (second intermediate component 114b, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A), the third … eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A).”
However, Robbins fails to teach (claim 8) “a second eye pupil expander along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the … second eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler.” and (claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises … a fourth eye pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the … fourth eve pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler.”
Blomstedt teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising:
at least one waveguide (paragraph [0006]: “waveguide body”) having an in-coupler (in-coupling grating 31);
… a first image (paragraph [0006] the portion of the incoming light which is diffracted in the +1 order in Fig. 1) and … a second image (paragraph [0006] the portion of the incoming light which is diffracted in the -1 order in Fig. 1); and
… direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (paragraph [0006]: “The in-coupling grating is configured to couple incoming light into the waveguide body”);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to use different diffractive orders to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0006]: “The in-coupling grating is configured to couple incoming light into the waveguide body into two separate directions using opposite diffraction orders for splitting the field of view of the incoming light.”).”
(claim 8) wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (out-coupling grating 34A) and a first and a second eye pupil expander (first EPE grating 32A and second EPE grating 33A) along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]), the first and second eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs [0006] and [0025]).”
(claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises a third and a fourth eye pupil expander (first EPE grating 32B and second EPE grating 33B) along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]), the third and fourth eve pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]).”
Blomstedt further teaches (paragraph [0025]): “By properly selecting the gratings vectors in this configuration, light rays can be fed through the out-coupler on the EPE gratings 33A, 33B without any diffraction. This can be seen from the wave vector analysis example shown in FIG. 4. Out-coupler diffracts the light rays coming from the first EPE gratings out-side the annulus, i.e. no diffraction occurs. Light transportation through the out-coupler on the EPE gratings enables smaller grating areas and thus better form factor for the waveguide.”
Robbins teaches the apparatus of claims 8 and 9 except for using only one eye pupil expander for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element. Blomstedt teaches that one can instead use two eye pupil expanders for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two eye pupil expanders for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element as taught by Blomstedt in the apparatus of Robbins for the purpose of enabling smaller grating areas and a better form factor for the waveguide as taught by Blomstedt (paragraph [0025]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg), Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) and Blomstedt et al. US 2021/0109347 A1 (hereafter Blomstedt) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claim 10, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel – Blomstedt combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 8,” however, Robbins does not explicitly teach “wherein a grating pitch Λe of at least one of the eye pupil expanders is 560 nm to 1,250 nm” because Robbins does not explicitly disclose the grating pitch or period that are used for the eye pupil expanders.
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claim 10) wherein a grating pitch Λe is 560 nm to 1,250nm (page 23 lines 21-22: “a grating having a period of 0.52 µm” which is 520 nm; page 26 line 13 “a 1.25µm grating period” which is 1250 nm; Fig. 5a-b, page 27 “grating 70 has a periodic square wave profile with a period of 1300nm. Each period of the grating has three grooves 72a, 72b and 72c, and three ridges 74a, 74b and 74c. The two or more of grooves 72a-c or and ridges 74a-c can have different widths, as illustrated in Figure 5a.” Thus the overall grating pitch can be 1300 nm, with individual pitches on the order of 300 nm to 600 nm as shown in Fig. 5A.)
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the grating periods or pitches to be between 520 nm and 1,250 nm as taught by WO 977 in the apparatus of Robbins for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872