DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a grating out-coupler disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.”
Similarly, claim 13 recites “wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the first lightguide, and wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the viewing area, wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE” and claim 19 recites “the diffractive out-coupler is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the diffractive out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.”
However, it is unclear how a grating out-coupler can be constructed to “direct the image light within the substrate” when the grating out-coupler is “configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox.” Specifically, if the coupler is out-coupling portions of the light from the substrate, it would not be directing image light within the substrate. It is unclear if the “grating out-coupler” is intended to be a separate coupler for coupling light into the lightguide or if the out-coupler should be designed to not couple light out of the substrate. Moreover, it is unclear how to construct the ODGs to have “the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.” Specifically, if the ODGs are overlapping, it is unclear how the second ODG can be between the first ODG and the input DOE as they would be overlapping and thus, it is unclear what direction the ODGs should be overlapping in.
For the purposes of examination, any out-coupler comprising first and second diffraction gratings that overlap in any dimension will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; claims 14-18 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 13 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 19 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollands et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0174255; hereinafter – “Hollands”) in view of Grant et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/024378; hereinafter – “Grant”).
Regarding claim 1, Hollands teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (20B, 90) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a grating out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 2, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the substrate comprises (20B, 90) two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) from the surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103).
Regarding claim 3, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) comprises a holographic optical element (HOE) having a positive optical power (See e.g. Fig. 8; Paragraphs 0063-0067).
Regarding claim 5, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 3, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the HOE is configured to operate as an off-axis lens to focus an off-axis incident light beam (See e.g. Fig. 8; Paragraphs 0063-0067).
Regarding claim 7, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that that the input DOE (102) is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 9, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) has a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 10, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE and the first ODG are disposed along the two opposing surfaces with an overlap in a direction normal to the first surface of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 11, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the first ODG has a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 12, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the first ODG includes a first set of grating fringes, the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG (44) that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first (42) and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposing directions (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that the first ODG includes a first set of grating fringes, the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposing directions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Regarding claim 13, Hollands teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a first lightguide (20B, 90) comprising a substrate for relaying image light to a viewing area, the first lightguide comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the first lightguide by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the first lightguide located closest to the viewing area, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the first lightguide, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a grating out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple the image light from the substrate toward the viewing area (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 14, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches a curved shell substrate of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising the first lightguide including the input DOE and the grating out-coupler (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 18, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the grating out-coupler (42) comprises a diffraction grating having a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066).
Regarding claim 19, Hollands teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (20B, 90) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a diffractive out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the diffractive out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox, the diffractive out-coupler comprising an optical diffraction grating having a substantially constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 20, Hollands in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 19, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE is configured to have a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLapp et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0166756; hereinafter – “DeLapp”) in view of Grant.
Regarding claim 1, DeLapp teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (116) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, and 8; Paragraphs 0036-0039, 0041-0042, and 0055);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (114, 148A) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060); and
a grating out-coupler (120, 148B) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications (158’, 160’, 162’) of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042 and 0055-0060).
With regard to the limitation that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, DeLapp teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations and further teaches that the DOE and grating out-couple can be located “on a rear surface of waveguide 116… on a front surface of waveguide 116 (e.g., opposite the surface shown in FIG. 3), may be embedded within waveguide 116, or may be partially embedded in waveguide 116” (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, even if DeLapp did not disclose the required configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of DeLapp such that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, as suggested by DeLapp since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
DeLapp fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of DeLapp such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 2, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the substrate comprises (116) two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) from the surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, and 8; Paragraphs 0036-0039, 0041-0042, and 0055).
Regarding claim 3, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the input DOE comprises a holographic optical element (HOE) having a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 5, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 3, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the HOE is configured to operate as an off-axis lens to focus an off-axis incident light beam (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060).
Regarding claim 7, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the input DOE is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that that the input DOE (102) is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 9, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the input DOE has a positive optical power, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060).
Regarding claim 10, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the input DOE and the first ODG are disposed along the two opposing surfaces with an overlap in a direction normal to the first surface of the substrate (Paragraphs 0028, 0060-0062, and 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 11, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the first ODG has a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 4-5 and 9-11; Paragraphs 0048, 0061, and 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 12, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the first ODG includes first set of grating fringes; the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposite directions (See e.g. Figs. 9-11; Paragraphs 0061-0064).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that the first ODG includes a first set of grating fringes, the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposing directions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Regarding claim 13, DeLapp teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a first lightguide (116) comprising a substrate for relaying image light to a viewing area, the first lightguide comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the first lightguide by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, and 8; Paragraphs 0036-0039, 0041-0042, and 0055);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (114, 148A) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the first lightguide located closest to the viewing area, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the lightguide, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060); and
a grating out-coupler (120, 148B) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple the image light from the substrate toward the viewing area (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications (158’, 160’, 162’) of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042 and 0055-0060).
With regard to the limitation that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, DeLapp teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations and further teaches that the DOE and grating out-couple can be located “on a rear surface of waveguide 116… on a front surface of waveguide 116 (e.g., opposite the surface shown in FIG. 3), may be embedded within waveguide 116, or may be partially embedded in waveguide 116” (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, even if DeLapp did not disclose the required configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of DeLapp such that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, as suggested by DeLapp since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
DeLapp fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of DeLapp such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 14, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
DeLapp further teaches a curved shell substrate of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising the first lightguide including the input DOE and the grating out-coupler (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Regarding claim 15, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the first lightguide is disposed in a cavity within the curved shell substrate with gaps between opposing surfaces of the substrate and the material of the shell (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Regarding claim 16, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, as above.
DeLapp further teaches a second lightguide disposed within the curved shell substrate and comprising a substrate, an input DOE, and a diffractive out-coupler, wherein the substrates of the first and second lightguides are an angle to each other (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Regarding claim 18, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the grating out-coupler comprises a diffraction grating having a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 4-5 and 9-11; Paragraphs 0048, 0061, and 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 19, DeLapp teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (116) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, and 8; Paragraphs 0036-0039, 0041-0042, and 0055);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (114, 148A) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060); and
a diffractive out-coupler (120, 148B) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the diffractive out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox, the diffractive out-coupler comprising an optical diffraction grating having a substantially constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042, 0055, and 0057-0060),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications (158’, 160’, 162’) of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraphs 0038-0042 and 0055-0060).
With regard to the limitation that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, DeLapp teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations and further teaches that the DOE and grating out-couple can be located “on a rear surface of waveguide 116… on a front surface of waveguide 116 (e.g., opposite the surface shown in FIG. 3), may be embedded within waveguide 116, or may be partially embedded in waveguide 116” (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, even if DeLapp did not disclose the required configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of DeLapp such that the input DOE is disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox and the grating out-coupler is disposed at a second surface, as suggested by DeLapp since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
DeLapp fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of DeLapp such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
Regarding claim 20, DeLapp in view of Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 19, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the input DOE is configured to have a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 6-11; Paragraph 0040).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14, and 18-20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,459,451; hereinafter – “Saarikko”).
Regarding claim 1, Hollands teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (20B, 90) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a grating out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
While Hollands teaches an input diffractive element with optical power reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed input diffractive optical element, Examiner further submits reference Saarikko. Saarikko teaches an eye tracking apparatus comprising a substrate (412), an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (414) configured to couple image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power, and a grating out-coupler (416) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Abstract; C. 2, L. 1-35; C. 10, L. 16 – C. 11, L. 12; C. 11, L. 31-43).
Saarikko teaches this DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” (C. 11, L. 5-12) to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range” (C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Therefore, even if Hollands did not teach the requisite DOE it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of Hollands with the DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power as taught by Saarikko to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range,” as in Saarikko (C. 11, L. 5-12; C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the substrate comprises (20B, 90) two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) from the surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103).
Regarding claim 3, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) comprises a holographic optical element (HOE) having a positive optical power (See e.g. Fig. 8; Paragraphs 0063-0067).
Regarding claim 5, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 3, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the HOE is configured to operate as an off-axis lens to focus an off-axis incident light beam (See e.g. Fig. 8; Paragraphs 0063-0067).
Regarding claim 7, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 1, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that that the input DOE (102) is configured to in-couple light so that the in-coupled light is reflected off the second surface by TIR toward the input DOE at an angle outside an angular acceptance range of the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 9, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 2, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE (44) has a positive optical power, and wherein the grating out-coupler (42, 44) comprises a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (42) (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 10, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE and the first ODG are disposed along the two opposing surfaces with an overlap in a direction normal to the first surface of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 11, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the first ODG has a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Regarding claim 12, Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant teaches the lightguide of claim 9, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the first ODG includes a first set of grating fringes, the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG (44) that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first (42) and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposing directions (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Additionally, Grant further teaches that the first ODG includes a first set of grating fringes, the grating out-coupler comprises a second ODG that includes a second set of grating fringes, the first and second sets of grating fringes slanting in opposing directions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Regarding claim 13, Hollands teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a first lightguide (20B, 90) comprising a substrate for relaying image light to a viewing area, the first lightguide comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the first lightguide by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the first lightguide located closest to the viewing area, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the first lightguide, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a grating out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the grating out-coupler is configured to out-couple the image light from the substrate toward the viewing area (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
While Hollands teaches an input diffractive element with optical power reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed input diffractive optical element, Examiner further submits reference Saarikko. Saarikko teaches an eye tracking apparatus comprising a substrate (412), an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (414) configured to couple image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power, and a grating out-coupler (416) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Abstract; C. 2, L. 1-35; C. 10, L. 16 – C. 11, L. 12; C. 11, L. 31-43).
Saarikko teaches this DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” (C. 11, L. 5-12) to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range” (C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Therefore, even if Hollands did not teach the requisite DOE it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands with the DOE having a spatially variable pitch to provide the DOE with an optical power as taught by Saarikko to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range,” as in Saarikko (C. 11, L. 5-12; C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches a curved shell substrate of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising the first lightguide including the input DOE and the grating out-coupler (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 18, Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the grating out-coupler (42) comprises a diffraction grating having a constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066).
Additionally, Saarikko further teaches that the grating out-coupler comprises a diffraction grating having a substantially constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Abstract; C. 2, L. 1-35; C. 10, L. 16 – C. 11, L. 12; C. 11, L. 31-43).
Regarding claim 19, Hollands teaches a lightguide for a display apparatus, the lightguide comprising:
a substrate (20B, 90) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0036, 0060-0062, 0070-0071, and 0103);
an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (44) disposed at a first surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate located closest to the eyebox, wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066); and
a diffractive out-coupler (42) disposed at a second surface of the opposing surfaces of the substrate, wherein the diffractive out-coupler is configured to out-couple portions of the image light from the substrate toward the eyebox, the diffractive out-coupler comprising an optical diffraction grating having a substantially constant grating pitch (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0039-0044, 0048-0057, and 0060-0066),
wherein the grating out-couple is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, and 20; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0048-0057).
Hollands fails to explicitly disclose that each ray of the image light is incident of a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) that directs a first set of image light rays through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG that directs a second set of image light rays through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE.
However, Grant teaches methods and apparatuses for providing a holographic waveguide display using integrated gratings comprising a substrate (101) for relaying image light to an eyebox, the substrate comprising two opposing surfaces for guiding the image light within the substrate by total internal reflection (TIR) of the image light from the opposing surfaces; an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (102), wherein the DOE is configured to couple the image light into the substrate; and a grating out-coupler (103), wherein the grating out-coupler (103) is configured to produce a plurality of pupil replications of an image by directing the image light within the substrate such that each ray of the image light is incident on a plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler as the ray is relayed through the substrate, wherein, at each of the plurality of separate regions of the grating out-coupler, a portion of the ray is diffracted toward the eyebox, and wherein the grating out-coupler comprises: a first optical diffraction grating (ODG) (105, 301, 311, 402, 903) that directs a first set of image light rays (406A) through the substrate in a first direction, and a second ODG (106, 302, 312, 403, 905) that directs a second set of image light rays (406B) through the substrate in a second direction, the second ODG at least partially overlapping the first ODG such that the second ODG is disposed between the first ODG and the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 9; Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0100-0101, and 0112).
Grant teaches this light relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings in order to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” (Paragraphs 0042-0043) and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates” (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lightguide of Hollands such that light is relayed through the substrate by TIR and diffracted at a plurality of separate regions with overlapping optical diffraction gratings as in Grant to provide “wide angle, low cost, efficient, and compact waveguide displays,” to “allow for a compact waveguide display that is suitable for various applications, including but not limited to AR, VR, HUD, and LIDAR applications” and to “enable higher quality images and the potential to use less expensive, lower specification substrates,” as taught by Grant (Paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0086).
While Hollands teaches an input diffractive element with optical power reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed input diffractive optical element, Examiner further submits reference Saarikko. Saarikko teaches an eye tracking apparatus comprising a substrate (412), an input diffractive optical element (DOE) (414) configured to couple image light into the substrate, the input DOE having a spatially variable pitch, and a grating out-coupler (416) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Abstract; C. 2, L. 1-35; C. 10, L. 16 – C. 11, L. 12; C. 11, L. 31-43).
Saarikko teaches this DOE having a spatially variable pitch to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” (C. 11, L. 5-12) to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range” (C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Therefore, even if Hollands did not teach the requisite DOE it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands with the DOE having a spatially variable pitch as taught by Saarikko to “cause angular encoding of the infrared light beams that are incident on the input-coupler 414, thereby enabling the infrared light beams that exit the planar waveguide 412 through the output-coupler 416 to be imaged (e.g., by the eye tracking IR sensor 134B) in a manner that distinguishes between infrared light beams that were incident on different horizontal and vertical positions of the input-coupler 414” to provide “eye tracking hardware in a manner that does not impair the see-through properties of the mixed reality display device system” and which “enables imaging of the eye the works with all types of prescription spectacles, and enables imaging of the eye that covers the entire eye movement range plus an inter-pupillary distance range,” as in Saarikko (C. 11, L. 5-12; C. 14, L. 62 – C. 15, L. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko teaches the lightguide of claim 19, as above.
Hollands further teaches that the input DOE is configured to have a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0039-0054, 0056, and 0059-0066).
Additionally, Saarikko teaches that the input DOE is configured to have a positive optical power (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Abstract; C. 2, L. 1-35; C. 10, L. 16 – C. 11, L. 12; C. 11, L. 31-43).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollands in view of Grant, DeLapp in view of Grant, or Hollands in view of Saarikko and Grant, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Stenberg et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0307886; hereinafter – “Stenberg”).
Regarding claim 14, Hollands in view of Grant, DeLapp in view of Grant, and Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko each teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches a curved shell substrate of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising the first lightguide including the input DOE and the grating out-coupler (See e.g. Fig. 11; Paragraphs 0069-0071).
DeLapp further teaches a curved shell substrate of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising the first lightguide including the input DOE and the grating out-coupler (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Nevertheless, Examiner submits reference Stenberg. Stenberg teaches a near-eye display comprising a curved shell substrate (142) of an optically transparent material, the curved shell substrate comprising a first lightguide (251) including the input DOE (310a, 310b) and the grating out-coupler (330a, 330b) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0042-0045 and 0047-0049).
Stenberg teaches this curved shell substrate as “a protective enclosure for various display elements” (Paragraph 0043) to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, even if Hollands or DeLapp did not teach the requisite curved shell substrate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands or DeLapp with the curved shell substrate of Stenberg as “a protective enclosure for various display elements” to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear,” as taught by Stenberg (Paragraphs 0002 and 0043).
Regarding claim 15, Hollands in view of Grant and Stenberg, DeLapp in view of Grant and Stenberg, and Hollands in view of Grant, Saarikko, and Stenberg teach the display apparatus of claim 14, as above.
DeLapp further teaches that the first lightguide is disposed in a cavity within the curved shell substrate with gaps between opposing surfaces of the substrate and the material of the shell (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Additionally, Stenberg further teaches that the first lightguide is disposed in a cavity within the curved shell substrate with gaps between opposing surfaces of the substrate and the material of the shell (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0042-0045 and 0047-0049).
Stenberg teaches this curved shell substrate as “a protective enclosure for various display elements” (Paragraph 0043) to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands or DeLapp with the curved shell substrate of Stenberg as “a protective enclosure for various display elements” to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear,” as taught by Stenberg (Paragraphs 0002 and 0043).
Regarding claim 16, Hollands in view of Grant and Stenberg, DeLapp in view of Grant and Stenberg, and Hollands in view of Grant, Saarikko, and Stenberg teach the display apparatus of claim 14, as above.
DeLapp further teaches a second lightguide disposed within the curved shell substrate and comprising a substrate, an input DOE, and a diffractive out-coupler, wherein the substrates of the first and second lightguides are an angle to each other (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0036).
Additionally, Stenberg further teaches a second lightguide (322b) disposed within the curved shell substrate and comprising a substrate (322b), an input DOE (312b), and a diffractive out-coupler (330b), wherein the substrates of the first and second lightguides are an angle to each other (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0051-0053).
Stenberg teaches this second lightguide such that “different portions of an image for a given eye of the user are generated and input simultaneously into separate input ports of a waveguide, then reintegrated within the waveguide and projected into the eye of the user as a single integrated image, to produce a larger FOV” (Paragraph 0054) to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands or DeLapp with the second lightguide of Stenberg such that “different portions of an image for a given eye of the user are generated and input simultaneously into separate input ports of a waveguide, then reintegrated within the waveguide and projected into the eye of the user as a single integrated image, to produce a larger FOV” to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear,” as taught by Stenberg (Paragraphs 0002 and 0054), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 17, Hollands in view of Grant, DeLapp in view of Grant, and Hollands in view of Grant and Saarikko each teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, as above.
Hollands further teaches an image projector (20A) for directing the image light toward the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
Additionally, DeLapp further teaches an image projector (26, 100) for directing the image light toward the input DOE (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraph 0034).
Hollands and DeLapp fail to explicitly disclose that the image projector disposed at a top portion of the substrate when the display apparatus is in use by a standing person.
However, Stenberg teaches a near-eye display comprising a first lightguide (251) including an input DOE (310a, 310b), a grating out-coupler (330a, 330b), and an image projector for directing the image light toward the input DOE, the image projector (254) disposed at a top portion of the substrate when the display apparatus is in use by a standing person (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0046-0047, 0052, 0060, and 0064).
Stenberg teaches this image projector at a top portion of the substrate “to overlay three-dimensional images on the user's view of his real-world environment, e.g., by projecting light into the user's eyes” (Paragraph 0046) such that “different portions of an image for a given eye of the user are generated and input simultaneously into separate input ports of a waveguide, then reintegrated within the waveguide and projected into the eye of the user as a single integrated image, to produce a larger FOV” (Paragraph 0054) to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear” (Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Hollands or DeLapp with the image projector at a top portion of the substrate of Stenberg “to overlay three-dimensional images on the user's view of his real-world environment, e.g., by projecting light into the user's eyes” such that “different portions of an image for a given eye of the user are generated and input simultaneously into separate input ports of a waveguide, then reintegrated within the waveguide and projected into the eye of the user as a single integrated image, to produce a larger FOV” to provide “an NED device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or some other type of eyewear,” as taught by Stenberg (Paragraphs 0002, 0046, and 0054), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Grant, as detailed above and necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0206300) teaches a diffraction light guide plate having a diffractive out-coupler comprising overlapping gratings.
Chi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0055553) teaches a field-of-view stitched waveguide display with a diffractive out-coupler comprising overlapping gratings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896