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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, filed on December 11th, 2025, with respect to the 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the newly amended claim 1 includes all of the limitations cited in these claims, thus they do not further limit the subject matter of the claim(s) on which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2019/0284473 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jain teaches an augmented reality device comprising a micro-display (See, e.g., pump-light source 104 in Fig. 1), an optical system configured to transfer light emitted from the micro-display along a predetermined light path (See, e.g., the combination of substrate 108, coating 112, and coating 120 in Fig. 1), a diffractive optical element (DOE) disposed in the optical path (See, e.g., diffractive optical element 2056 in Fig. 20C which per paragraph [0157] is located between a viewer and the device shown in Fig. 1 thus disposed in the optical path as the final element in the optical path); and
a quantum-dot wavelength-conversion element disposed at a predetermined location along the optical path between the micro-display and the DOE such that the quantum-dot element is optically coupled with the DOE to improve diffraction efficiency and color uniformity of an augmented reality image (See, e.g., CC layer 116 in Fig. 1 and note that given the rejection of the above limitation, the CC layer 116 would be between the cited micro-display and the cited DOE and thus optically coupled with both elements, and paragraph [0104] which explains layer 116 can include quantum dots. Further, 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)).
Jain lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the DOE has a one-dimensional or two-dimensional grating structure comprising a height-variation pattern formed in an optical material.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to pick a grating-type DOE for the purpose of optimizing the profile of the light passing the device to a user. Further, not that Jain does not describe the type of DOE at all, and so this change would not take a specific optical element and change it to something else, and thus the change in shape is not altering a function of the combination significantly. Note that a grating necessarily has a pattern formed in an optical material and a “height-variation pattern” can include a variation of 0 as the claim does not specify a range for the variation, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the micro-display comprises an OLED, an LCOS, an LCD, a DMD, an inorganic LED, a laser beam scanning mirror type display, or a fiber scanning type display (See, e.g., paragraph [0049] which explains an OLED may be used).
Regarding claim 3, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a grating structure having a height-variation pattern formed in an optical material (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the quantum-dot element is dispersed in a polymer or glass material and provided in the form of a film, a coating or a plate (See, e.g., paragraph [0081] which explains that CC layer may be composed of various quantum dot semiconductor materials but also a polymer, which meets this limitation. Further note that Fig. 1 shows the quantum dot in layer 116 formed as a film/layer/plate insofar as it is part of a stack of layers and the claim does not require any specifics regarding what makes a film different from a layer).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the quantum-dot element is disposed inside the micro-display or on the substrate, or in the form of a coating or a film (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows the quantum dot in layer 116 formed as a film/layer insofar as it is part of a stack of layers and the claim does not require any specifics regarding what makes a film different from a layer).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical system comprises one or more spherical, aspherical, or free curved lens; a prism; a mirror; a free space reflection mirror type optical system; a beam splitter type optical system; a reflective or transmissive pin-hole type optical system; a waveguide type optical system; a waveguide type optical system having a patterning structure or a mirror array structure; or a bird- bath-type optical system (See, e.g., the combination of substrate 108, coating 112, and coating 120 in Fig. 1 which act as a waveguide system and meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches an augmented reality device of an all-in-one type or a tethered type, comprising the augmented reality device of claim 1 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above and paragraph [0042] which explains this device is used in AR applications, making it an augmented reality device of an all-in-one type as there is no tether present in this device).
Regarding claim 10, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a height-variation pattern formed in an optical material (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Jain teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the quantum-dot element comprises a material having a particle size of 1µm to 10µm.
However, the particle size of the quantum-dot elements corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the size of these dots directly impacts the spectral profile of the light passing the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the spectral profile of the light.
Regarding claim 16, Jain teaches the device set forth above and further teaches an augmented reality device of an all-in-one type or a tethered type, applying the augmented reality device of claim 2 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 2 above and paragraph [0042] which explains this device is used in AR applications, making it an augmented reality device of an all-in-one type as there is no tether present in this device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach a holographic optical element having a refractive-index distribution pattern formed in an optical material.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the quantum-dot element comprises a material including a CdSeS/ZnS quantum dot, a CdSe/ZnS core-shell quantum dot, a CdTe quantum dot, a PbS quantum dot, a perovskite-type quantum dot, or a cadmium-free quantum dot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Further, applicant’s argument that foreign priority was not indicated in the last office action is correct. That is because there are no foreign priority documents on file and no records of foreign priority on file. There is a 371 of a PCT but while that is a parent application is it not considered a foreign application.
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 MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872