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 filed 12/15/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 4, 8-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that “a first grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a first grating bar of the second segment and a second grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a second grating bar of the second segment.” However, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim and how such a limitation further limits the claim. Specifically, since each segment includes multiple grating bars, any grating bar can be defined as the corresponding grating bar. As such, it is unclear what is encompassed by the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 recites that “the EPE grating is doubly periodic.” However, it is unclear how a grating can be “doubly periodic.” Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is referring to dimensions of the gratings, a period of the grating, a pitch of the grating, etc. Moreover, it is unclear if the claim intends for the grating to be periodic in multiple dimensions, have more than one period, or have some additional structure that would be considered “doubly periodic.” For the purposes of examination, any periodic grating structure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “the first segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a first phase shift to a light ray deflected in the first segment and the second segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a second phase shift to a light ray deflected in the second segment.” However, it is unclear what structure is required “to cause a first phase shift to a light ray.” As such, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the segments performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the segments to perform the function of causing a phase shift. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
For the purposes of examination, any segments having grating bars with a different structural configuration will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 11 recites that “an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the first segment is the same as an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the second segment.” However, such a limitation depends not on the grating but on the light incident on the grating. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim, as it is unclear if the claim positively requires a light source. Moreover, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the segments performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the segments to perform the function of allowing for a specific light ray amplitude to be deflected. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Claim 12 recites that “the second segment is subsequent to the first segment for a light ray guided to the EPE grating.” However, it is unclear how a segment can be “subsequent” to another “for a light ray guided to the EPE grating.” Specifically, it is unclear what structure is required for the segments to be “subsequent.” It is unclear if the claim intends for light to pass through the first segment and then the second segment, for the first segment to be adjacent the second segment, or if the claim requires some other structural relationship. For the purposes of examination, any two segments arranged on an EPE grating will be interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 13 recites that “the EPE grating further comprises multiple grating bars in a third segment and each of said multiple bars in the third segment is offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “a corresponding grating bar” as each segment is defined to include multiple grating bars. As such, there necessarily exists a grating bar in each segment that will necessarily be “offset” and would read on the claimed corresponding grating bar. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes two bars being “offset” as such grating bars can be defined by multiple dimensions and features.
For the purposes of examination, any structure having a third segment with multiple bars distinct from the first and second segments will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites that “the EPE grating is arranged to spread and couple light out of the EPE grating, and preferably also arranged to operate as an in-coupler.” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that the EPE grating “is arranged to spread and couple light out of the EPE grating” as the claim merely recites a function of the grating without reciting any structural requirements to achieve the function. It is unclear if any EPE grating could be arranged to achieve the function or if the claim is intended to require some additional structure.
For the purposes of examination, any EPE grating meeting the structural requirements of the claims will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 16 recites that “the EPE grating is arranged to keep an amplitude of light rays propagating through different paths in the EPE grating as unaltered.” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that the grating can “keep an amplitude of light rays propagating through different paths in the EPE grating as unaltered.” It is unclear if any EPE grating could be arranged to achieve the function or if the claim is intended to require some additional structure.
For the purposes of examination, any EPE grating meeting the structural requirements of the claims will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites that “the EPE grating is disposed within a traveling light signal between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating for expanding the exit pupil of the image on the out-coupling grating.” However, it is unclear how the EPE grating is to be arranged “between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating” as it is unclear if “between” is intended to refer to a location on the light path, a location on the waveguide, or some other location that would be considered “between” the gratings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levola (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2010/0214659).
Regarding claim 1, Levola teaches an Exit Pupil Expander, EPE, grating comprising: a first segment (21a, 21c, 22a, 22c) of multiple grating bars; and a second segment (21b, 22b) of multiple grating bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049 and 0057-0058), wherein the grating bars of the first segment are offset from the grating bars of the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115), thereby causing light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating to undergo different phase shifts (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 3, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple grating bars in the second segment is offset compared to a corresponding grating bar in the first segment by a distance (d) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 4, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 3, as above.
Levola further teaches that a first grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a first grating bar of the second segment and a second grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a second grating bar of the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 5, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 3, as above.
Levola further teaches that the distance (d) is less than a period of the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 6, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple bars in the second segment is laterally offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 7, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple bars in the second segment is vertically offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 8, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is doubly periodic (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049 and 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 9, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the first segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a first phase shift to a light ray deflected in the first segment and the second segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a second phase shift to a light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 10, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 9, as above.
Levola further teaches that the first phase shift is different compared to the second phase shift (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 11, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 9, as above.
Levola further teaches that an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the first segment is the same as an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 12, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the second segment is subsequent to the first segment for a light ray guided to the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 13, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating further comprises multiple grating bars in a third segment (21c, 22c) and each of said multiple bars in the third segment is offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (21a, 22a) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 15, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to spread and couple light out of the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0051-0055, 0060-0061, 0093-0095, 0101, and 0104).
Regarding claim 16, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to keep an amplitude of light rays propagating through different paths in the EPE grating as unaltered (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 17, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches an optical waveguide arrangement for displaying an image, comprising: an optical waveguide (7, 50); an in-coupling grating (10) for diffractively coupling the image into the optical waveguide; an out-coupling grating (30) for diffractively coupling the image out of the optical waveguide; and an EPE grating (21, 22) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the EPE grating is disposed within a traveling light signal between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating for expanding the exit pupil of the image on the out-coupling grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0058).
Regarding claim 18, Levola teaches the optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 17, as above.
Levola further teaches that the optical waveguide arrangement includes a personal display device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 14-15; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0059-0060, 0066, and 0121-0124).
Regarding claim 19, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to operate as an in-coupler (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0051-0055, 0060-0061, 0093-0095, 0101, and 0104).
Regarding claim 20, Levola teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is a single substrate divided into at least the two segments, allowing the light rays propagating along different paths in the same substrate to undergo different phase shifts in parallel across the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
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, 3-13, and 15-20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levola in view of Jones, Jr. et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0052501; hereinafter – “Jones, Jr.”).
Regarding claim 1, Levola teaches an Exit Pupil Expander, EPE, grating comprising: a first segment (21a, 21c, 22a, 22c) of multiple grating bars; and a second segment (21b, 22b) of multiple grating bars (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049 and 0057-0058), wherein the grating bars of the first segment are offset from the grating bars of the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115), thereby causing light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating to undergo different phase shifts (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
While Levola teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Jones, Jr.
Jones, Jr. teaches a wearable device comprising multiple grating bars in a first segment and multiple grating bars in a second segment, said multiple grating bars of the first segment being directed about to a same direction as said multiple grating bars of the second segment and misaligned in a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the grating bars wherein said multiple grating bars of the first segment and said multiple grating bars of the second segment are misaligned to cause light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating to undergo different phase shifts (See e.g. Figs. 37-44; Paragraphs 0379-0396 and 0402-0406).
Jones, Jr. teaches these segments with different phase shifts “to improve luminance uniformity and/or eliminate luminance artifacts for the optical system” (Paragraph 0379).
Therefore, even if Levola did not disclose the required structure, 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 EPE grating of Levola such that light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating undergo different phase shifts as taught by Jones, Jr. “to improve luminance uniformity and/or eliminate luminance artifacts for the optical system,” as in Jones, Jr. (Paragraph 0379).
Regarding claim 3, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple grating bars in the second segment is offset compared to a corresponding grating bar in the first segment by a distance (d) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 4, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 3, as above.
Levola further teaches that a first grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a first grating bar of the second segment and a second grating bar of the first segment is the corresponding grating bar of a second grating bar of the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 5, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 3, as above.
Levola further teaches that the distance (d) is less than a period of the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 6, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple bars in the second segment is laterally offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 7, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that each of said multiple bars in the second segment is vertically offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 8, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is doubly periodic (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049 and 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 9, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the first segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a first phase shift to a light ray deflected in the first segment and the second segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a second phase shift to a light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
While Levola teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Jones, Jr.
Jones, Jr. teaches a wearable device comprising multiple grating bars in a first segment and multiple grating bars in a second segment, said multiple grating bars of the first segment being directed about to a same direction as said multiple grating bars of the second segment and misaligned in a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of the grating bars wherein the first segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a first phase shift to a light ray deflected in the first segment and the second segment of the EPE grating is arranged to cause a second phase shift to a light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 37-44; Paragraphs 0379-0396 and 0402-0406).
Jones, Jr. teaches these segments with different phase shifts “to improve luminance uniformity and/or eliminate luminance artifacts for the optical system” (Paragraph 0379).
Therefore, even if Levola did not disclose the required structure, 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 EPE grating of Levola such that light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating undergo different phase shifts as taught by Jones, Jr. “to improve luminance uniformity and/or eliminate luminance artifacts for the optical system,” as in Jones, Jr. (Paragraph 0379).
Regarding claim 10, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 9, as above.
Levola further teaches that the first phase shift is different compared to the second phase shift (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Additionally, Jones, Jr. further teaches that the first phase shift is different compared to the second phase shift (See e.g. Figs. 37-44; Paragraphs 0379-0396 and 0402-0406).
Regarding claim 11, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 9, as above.
Levola further teaches that an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the first segment is the same as an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Additionally, Jones, Jr. further teaches that an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the first segment is the same as an amplitude of the light ray deflected in the second segment (See e.g. Figs. 37-44; Paragraphs 0379-0396 and 0402-0406).
Regarding claim 12, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the second segment is subsequent to the first segment for a light ray guided to the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 13, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating further comprises multiple grating bars in a third segment (21c, 22c) and each of said multiple bars in the third segment is offset from a corresponding grating bar in the first segment (21a, 22a) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 15, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to spread and couple light out of the EPE grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0051-0055, 0060-0061, 0093-0095, 0101, and 0104).
Regarding claim 16, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to keep an amplitude of light rays propagating through different paths in the EPE grating as unaltered (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Regarding claim 17, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches an optical waveguide arrangement for displaying an image, comprising: an optical waveguide (7, 50); an in-coupling grating (10) for diffractively coupling the image into the optical waveguide; an out-coupling grating (30) for diffractively coupling the image out of the optical waveguide; and an EPE grating (21, 22) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the EPE grating is disposed within a traveling light signal between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating for expanding the exit pupil of the image on the out-coupling grating (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0058).
Regarding claim 18, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 17, as above.
Levola further teaches that the optical waveguide arrangement includes a personal display device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 14-15; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0059-0060, 0066, and 0121-0124).
Regarding claim 19, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is arranged to operate as an in-coupler (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0046-0049, 0051-0055, 0060-0061, 0093-0095, 0101, and 0104).
Regarding claim 20, Levola in view of Jones, Jr. teaches the EPE grating according to claim 1, as above.
Levola further teaches that the EPE grating is a single substrate divided into at least the two segments, allowing the light rays propagating along different paths in the same substrate to undergo different phase shifts in parallel across the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-11; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078-0087, 0090, 0093-0095, 0100-0103, and 0107-0115).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 4, 8-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Applicant has canceled claim 2, without prejudice, and amended claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 15, and 18 to more clearly recite aspects of the claimed invention, rendering this rejection moot.” However, Applicant’s amendments have not addressed the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 4, 8-13, and 15-17, as detailed previously and above. As such, these rejections have been maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “At the very least, Levola does not teach, show or suggest an Exit Pupil Expander, EPE, grating, comprising a first segment of multiple grating bars and a second segment of multiple grating bars, wherein the grating bars of the first segment are offset from the grating bars of the second segment, thereby causing light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating to undergo different phase shifts, as now required in every claim” since “Levola discloses multiple physically distinct gratings along a waveguide, where any phase differences arise sequentially from separate diffraction events. Levola does not teach or suggest internal offsets within the same grating to produce parallel, independently controlled phase shifts, nor does it provide the resulting optical benefits.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
No special definition of “grating” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “An Exit Pupil Expander, EPE, grating”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “grating,” which states/seems to imply that the separate grating portions of Levola do not read on a grating having multiple portions. To the contrary, Levola explicitly teaches that 21a, 21b, 21c, 22a, 22b, and 22c are all portions of a single diffractive beam expander 50 (See e.g. Figs. 1-11 and Paragraph 0047), reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed structure. Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
It is unclear if Applicant intends the “grating” to include segments that are not physically separated, or must have some uniform design, but such a structure is not required by the instant claims. As such, Applicant has not provided any structure that is believed to be distinct in the claims as compared to the Levola reference. "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Applicant has provided no evidence that the device of Levola would not be capable of meeting the function of phase shifting and recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Thus, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Moreover, the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.).
Applicant further argues that “it would not have been obvious to modify the gratings of Levola and/or Jones to arrive at the claimed invention” as the discrete phase variation patterns of Jones are “not the same as the claimed invention that requires a single grating with features unchanged but with offset, adjacent, segmented regions.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not require “a single grating with features unchanged” and that and grating segments on a singular substrate would read on the claimed grating with multiple grating bars.
Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Examiner maintains that 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 EPE grating of Levola such that light rays propagating along different paths in the EPE grating undergo different phase shifts as taught by Jones, Jr. “to improve luminance uniformity and/or eliminate luminance artifacts for the optical system,” as in Jones, Jr. (Paragraph 0379).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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