DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2026 and 11/04/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 02/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations of the amended claims, claim 1, 9 and 17. Specifically, Tammela (US 2021/0096371) in view of Yao (US 2023/0367129) fails to disclose “wherein the grating period Λoc is selected to satisfy a maximum period condition expressed in terms of a maximum output angle θoutmax and θoutmax is defined according to physical geometry between boundaries of the out-coupler gratinq and the eyebox plane” and “wherein the waveguide combiner comprises a single waveguide sheet configured such that red, green, and blue display channels propagate through the single waveguide sheet and wherein a top half of the waveguide combiner is tilted away from the eyebox plane”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant’s argument wherein the prior art fails to disclose “wherein the grating period Λoc is selected to satisfy a maximum period condition expressed in terms of a maximum output angle θoutmax and θoutmax is defined according to physical geometry between boundaries of the out-coupler gratinq and the eyebox plane” examiner notes that together the function Yao in Para [0085-0087] with the drawing the Fig 2 disclose a method of calculating a necessary grating period with relevant maximum diffraction angles in order to project light into an eye. In other words, figure 2 discloses a maximum and minimum diffraction angle necessary to focus light into the eye of a user as seen in said figure. Regarding applicant that the prior art fails to disclose the limitation of “wherein the waveguide combiner comprises a single waveguide sheet configured such that red, green, and blue display channels propagate through the single waveguide sheet and wherein a top half of the waveguide combiner is tilted away from the eyebox plane” examiner notes that Tammela in Para [0010] discloses that the optical waveguide may be formed in a single optical waveguide configuration and in Fig 4A Tammela discloses the waveguide tilted away from the user’s eye. For these reasons examiner maintains the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammela (US 2021/0096371, of record) in view of Yao (US 2023/0367129, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tammela discloses a method of manufacturing a rainbow-free waveguide display (see Fig 1A), comprising: manufacturing a waveguide display assembly configured to direct image light to an eyebox plane having a length (LEyebox) and to a user's eye (see Fig 1B; Para [0014]; a waveguide display 100 directs light to an plane on which the eye sists 106R), the waveguide display assembly comprising: a waveguide combiner (see Fig 1B; Para [0015]; examiner is interpreting the waveguide assembly 110 to be the waveguide combiner as waveguide assembly combines different wavelengths of light at output), and an out-coupler grating (see Fig 1B; Para [0018]; output coupler 136 can output the light waves from the waveguide), wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC (see Fig 1B; Para [0035]; output grating has a defined grating period).
Tammela does not disclose wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source, and wherein the grating period Λoc is selected to satisfy a maximum period condition expressed in terms of a maximum output angle θoutmax and θoutmax is defined according to physical geometry between boundaries of the out-coupler grating and the eyebox plane. Tammela and Yao are related because both disclose display devices for conducting light onto a user’s eye.
Yao discloses a display device (see Fig 2) wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source (see Fig 2; Para [0085]; diffraction equation of Bragg grating includes incident angle of light, diffractive angle, wavelength grating period in the case that the diffraction is in the first order or that m=1), and wherein the grating period Λoc is selected to satisfy a maximum period condition expressed in terms of a maximum output angle θoutmax and θoutmax is defined according to physical geometry between boundaries of the out-coupler grating and the eyebox plane (see Fig 2; Para [0085-0087]; Fig 2 discloses a maximum and minimum diffraction angle necessary to focus light into the eye of a user as seen in said figure together with a formula for calculating grating period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela with wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source of Yao for the purpose of allowing for increased adjustment at different angles (Para [0006])
Regarding claim 2, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the method of claim 1 (see Fig 1B). Tammela further discloses wherein the out-coupler grating has a length (Loc) which is the sum of a length of the top half of the out-coupler grating (LOCtop) and a length of the bottom half of the out-coupler grating (LOCbottom) (see Feig 1B; Para [0018]; out coupler 136 may be divided in a top half and a bottom half that together form a complete Length of the coupler).
Regarding claim 9, Tammela discloses a waveguide display (see Fig 1B), comprising: a waveguide display configured to direct image light to an eyebox plane having a length (LEyebox) and to a user's eye (see Fig 1B; Para [0014]; a waveguide display 100 directs light to an plane on which the eye sists 106R), the waveguide display comprising: a waveguide combiner (see Fig 1B; Para [0015]; examiner is interpreting the waveguide assembly 110 to be the waveguide combiner as waveguide assembly combines different wavelengths of light at output), and an out-coupler grating (see Fig 1B; Para [0018]; output coupler 136 can output the light waves from the waveguide), wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC (see Fig 1B; Para [0035]; output grating has a defined grating period); wherein the waveguide combiner comprises a single waveguide sheet configured such that red, green, and blue display channels propagate through the single waveguide sheet and wherein a top half of the waveguide combiner is tilted away from the eyebox plane (see Fig 4A; Para [0010]; Tammela discloses the optical waveguide may be formed in a single optical waveguide configuration and in Fig 4A Tammela discloses the waveguide tilted away from the user’s eye).
Tammela does not disclose wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source. Tammela and Yao are related because both disclose display devices for conducting light onto a user’s eye
Yao discloses a display device (see Fig 2) wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source (see Fig 2; Para [0085]; diffraction equation of Bragg grating includes incident angle of light, diffractive angle, wavelength and grating period in the case that the diffraction is in the first order or that m=1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela with wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source of Yao for the purpose of allowing for increased adjustment at different angles (Para [0006])
Regarding claim 10, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the waveguide display of claim 9. Tammela further discloses wherein the out-coupler grating has a length (Loc) which is the sum of a length of the top half of the out-coupler grating (LOCtop) and a length of the bottom half of the out-coupler grating (LOCbottom) (see Feig 1B; Para [0018]; out coupler 136 may be divided in a top half and a bottom half that together form a complete Length of the coupler).
Regarding claim 17, Tammela discloses a near-eye display (see Fig 1B), comprising: a frame; and a display coupled with the frame (see Fig 1A; Para [0011]; a frame 104 and a display 108), comprising: a waveguide display configured to direct image light to an eyebox plane having a length (LEyebox) and to a user's eye (see Fig 1B; Para [0014]; a waveguide display 100 directs light to an plane on which the eye sists 106R), the waveguide display comprising: a waveguide combiner (see Fig 1B; Para [0015]; examiner is interpreting the waveguide assembly 110 to be the waveguide combiner as waveguide assembly combines different wavelengths of light at output), and an out-coupler grating (see Fig 1B; Para [0018]; output coupler 136 can output the light waves from the waveguide), wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC (see Fig 1B; Para [0035]; output grating has a defined grating period); wherein the waveguide combiner comprises a single waveguide sheet configured such that red, green, and blue display channels propagate through the single waveguide sheet and wherein a top half of the waveguide combiner is tilted away from the eyebox plane (see Fig 4A; Para [0010]; Tammela discloses the optical waveguide may be formed in a single optical waveguide configuration and in Fig 4A Tammela discloses the waveguide tilted away from the user’s eye).
Tammela does not disclose wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source. Tammela and Yao are related because both disclose display devices for conducting light onto a user’s eye
Yao discloses a display device (see Fig 2) wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source (see Fig 2; Para [0085]; diffraction equation of Bragg grating includes incident angle of light, diffractive angle, wavelength and grating period in the case that the diffraction is in the first order or that m=1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela with wherein the out-coupler grating has a grating period ΛOC such that all angles of incidence θin of light from an external light source, result in diffracted angles θOUT, that miss the user's eye by satisfying the following first order diffraction equation (I):
sin
θ
o
u
t
=
sin
θ
i
n
+
/
-
λ
Λ
O
C
(I) wherein λ is the wavelength of the light from the external light source of Yao for the purpose of allowing for increased adjustment at different angles (Para [0006])
Regarding claim 18, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the near-eye display of claim 17. Tammela further discloses wherein the out-coupler grating has a length (Loc) which is the sum of a length of the top half of the out-coupler grating (LOCtop) and a length of the bottom half of the out-coupler grating (LOCbottom) (see Feig 1B; Para [0018]; out coupler 136 may be divided in a top half and a bottom half that together form a complete Length of the coupler).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammela (US 2021/0096371, of record) in view of Yao (US 2023/0367129, of record) as applied to claim 2, above and further in view of Chi (US 2020/0116995, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the method of claim 2. Tammela in view of Yao does not disclose wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi are related because both disclose optical display devices.
Chi discloses an optical discloses device (see Fig 4) wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane (see Fig 8; Para [0051, 0060-0062]; with a output grating with zero tilt (θo), (θtilt) and FOV of 60 deg; an Leyebox of around 12mm; Zeye of around 15-20; an LocTop and Locbottom can be calculated to be at around the 12 mm as seen in Fig 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao with wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane of Chi for the purpose of increasing FOV for the user (Para [0003])
Regarding claim 11, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the waveguide display of claim 10.
Tammela in view of Yao does not disclose wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi are related because both disclose optical display devices.
Chi discloses an optical discloses device (see Fig 4) wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane (see Fig 8; Para [0051, 0060-0062]; with a output grating with zero tilt (θo), (θtilt) and FOV of 60 deg; an Leyebox of around 12mm; Zeye of around 15mm-20mm; an LocTop and Locbottom can be calculated to be at around the 12 mm as seen in Fig 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao with wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane of Chi for the purpose of increasing FOV for the user (Para [0003])
Regarding claim 19, Tammela in view of Yao discloses the near-eye display of claim 18. Tammela in view of Yao does not disclose wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi are related because both disclose optical display devices.
Chi discloses an optical discloses device (see Fig 4) wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane (see Fig 8; Para [0051, 0060-0062]; with a output grating with zero tilt (θo), (θtilt) and FOV of 60 deg; an Leyebox of around 12x10; Zeye of around 15-20; an LocTop can be calculated to be at around the 12 mm as seen in Fig 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao with wherein Loctop is determined using the following equation (II):
L
o
c
T
o
p
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(II) and Locbottom is determined using the following equation (III):
L
o
c
b
o
t
t
o
m
=
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
c
o
s
(
θ
t
i
l
t
)
+
sin
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
)
c
o
s
(
θ
F
O
V
2
+
θ
0
-
θ
t
i
l
t
)
*
Z
e
y
e
(III) wherein the field-of-view extent, θfov, is the axis of the FoV in the direction of the effective out-coupler grating vector, which can be tilted by an amount (θo), (θtilt) is the tilt of the waveguide combiner relative to a plane defined by the eyebox plane, and the waveguide combiner is positioned a first distance zeye from the eyebox plane of Chi for the purpose of increasing FOV for the user (Para [0003])
Claims 4-8, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammela (US 2021/0096371, of record) in view of Yao (US 2023/0367129, of record) and Chi (US 2020/0116995, of record) as applied to claim 3, above and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0141130, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi discloses the method of claim 3 (see Fig 4). Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
Tammela in view of Yao and Chi and Lee are related because both disclose waveguide displays
Lee discloses a waveguide display (see Fig 11) wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
(see Fig 11; Para [0034-0043]; with a max FOV that is +/- 30 degree which is equivalent to angles
θ
o
u
t
u
p
a
n
d
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
so that a θ_outmax is of 60 deg; Chi discloses the atan to be 42 deg for Leye=12; Zeye of around 15-20; tilt =0 deg; and Loctop and Locbottom= 12mm)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI) of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 5, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the method of claim 4 (see Fig 11: Lee). Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered.
Lee further discloses wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0040, 0050]; with a shortest wavelength of 450 nm and FOV of the eyebox of 60 degrees together with gratings being less than 280nm; Lee discloses gratings of a smaller value than 450nm/1+sin (60deg); Examiner is interpreting θoutmax to be equivalent to the max FOV of a user to a waveguide of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 6, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the method of claim 5. (see Fig 11: Lee). Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein λ0 is 450 nm.
Lee further discloses wherein λ0 is 450 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0050]; some implementations use a wavelength of 450nm for the waveguide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein λ0 is 450 nm of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 7, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the method of claim 5. Tammela in view of Yao, Chi does not disclose wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel.
Lee further discloses wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0037]; For
θ
0
=
0
;
θ
t
i
l
t
=
0; with a θFOV of 60 a; and with
λ
R
,
620nm wavelength;
Λ
o
c
, a grating of around 300nm; the refractive index of at least 2.5 is greater).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 8, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the method of claim 7. Tammela in view of Yao, Chi does not disclose wherein λR is 620 nm.
Lee further discloses wherein λR is greater than 600 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0046]; some implementations use a red channel wavelength of greater than 600nm for the waveguide).
As Lee’s wavelength range includes the claimed value (i.e., <600 nm to of
the application’s 620nm), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein λR is 620 nm of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 12, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi discloses the waveguide display of claim 11, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
Tammela in view of Yao and Chi and Lee are related because both disclose waveguide displays
Lee discloses a waveguide display (see Fig 11) wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
(see Fig 11; Para [0034-0043]; with a max FOV that is +/- 30 degree which is equivalent to angles
θ
o
u
t
u
p
a
n
d
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
so that a θ_outmax is of 60 deg; Chi discloses the atan to be 42 deg for Leye=12; Zeye of around 15-20; tilt =0 deg; and Loctop and Locbottom= 12mm)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI) of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 13, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi discloses the waveguide display of claim 12. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered.
Lee further discloses wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0040, 0050]; with a shortest wavelength of 450 nm and angles of the eyebox of 60 degrees together with gratings being less than 280nm; Lee discloses gratings of a smaller valve than 450nm/1+sin (60deg) ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 14, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the waveguide display of claim 13. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein λ0 is 450 nm.
Lee further discloses wherein λ0 is 450 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0050]; some implementations use a wavelength of 450nm for the waveguide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein λ0 is 450 nm of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 15, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the waveguide display of claim 13, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel.
Lee further discloses wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0037]; For
θ
0
=
0
;
θ
t
i
l
t
=
0; with a θFOV of 60 a; and with
λ
R
,
620nm wavelength;
Λ
o
c
, a grating of around 300nm; the refractive index of at least 2.5 is greater).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 16, Tammela in view of Yao, Chi and Lee discloses the waveguide display of claim 15. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein λR is 620 nm.
Lee further discloses wherein λR is greater than 600 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0046]; some implementations use a red channel wavelength of greater than 600nm for the waveguide).
As Lee’s wavelength range includes the claimed value (i.e., <600 nm to of
the application’s 620nm), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein λR is 620 nm of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 20, Tammela in view of Yao and Chi discloses the near-eye display of claim 19. Tammela in view of Yao and Chi does not disclose wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered;
wherein λ0 is 450 nm;
wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel;
and wherein λR is 620 nm.
Tammela in view of Yao and Chi and Lee are related because both disclose waveguide displays
Lee discloses a waveguide display (see Fig 11) wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
(see Fig 11; Para [0034-0043]; with a max FOV that is +/- 30 degree which is equivalent to angles
θ
o
u
t
u
p
a
n
d
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
so that a θ_outmax is of 60 deg; Chi discloses the atan to be 42 deg for Leye=12; Zeye of around 15-20; tilt =0 deg; and Loctop and Locbottom= 12mm)
wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0040, 0050]; with a shortest wavelength of 450 nm and FOV of the eyebox of 60 degrees together with gratings being less than 280nm; Lee discloses gratings of a smaller value than 450nm/1+sin (60deg); Examiner is interpreting θoutmax to be equivalent to the max FOV of a user to a waveguide of Lee)
wherein λ0 is 450 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0050]; some implementations use a wavelength of 450nm for the waveguide).
wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel (see Fig 11; Para [0033, 0037]; For
θ
0
=
0
;
θ
t
i
l
t
=
0; with a θFOV of 60 a; and with
λ
R
,
620nm wavelength;
Λ
o
c
, a grating of around 300nm; the refractive index of at least 2.5 is greater).
wherein λR is 620 nm (see Fig 11; Para [0046]; some implementations use a red channel wavelength of greater than 600nm for the waveguide).
As Lee’s wavelength range includes the claimed value (i.e., <600 nm to of
the prior art 620nm), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tammela in view of Yao and Chi with wherein maximum angles (θoutmax) from the boundaries of the out-coupler grating to the user's eye are determined using equation (IV), equation (V), and equation (VI).
θ
o
u
t
u
p
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
+
L
O
C
t
o
p
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(IV)
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
<
atan
L
E
y
e
b
o
x
2
+
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
cos
θ
t
i
l
t
z
e
y
e
-
L
O
C
b
o
t
t
o
m
sin
θ
t
i
l
t
(V)
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
=
θ
o
u
t
u
p
+
θ
o
u
t
d
o
w
n
(VI)
wherein the out-coupler grating has a maximum period satisfying the following equation (VII):
Λ
O
C
<
λ
0
1
+
s
i
n
(
θ
o
u
t
m
a
x
)
(VII)
where λ0 is the shortest wavelength of "rainbow" artifact considered;
wherein λ0 is 450 nm;
wherein the waveguide combiner has a minimum refractive index (n) satisfying the following equation (VIII):
n
>
sin
θ
F
O
V
2
-
θ
0
+
θ
t
i
l
t
+
λ
R
Λ
o
c
(VIII)
where λR is the wavelength of the red display channel;
and wherein λR is 620 nm.
of Lee for the purpose of enabling size and weight reduction of the display (Para [0004])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights