Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Erler et al. does not disclose the limitation as presented in claims 1, 13-14. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses an optical system as claimed including a reflective diffractive in-coupler (11B) in the waveguide between the first and second surfaces; and a first transmissive diffractive in-coupler (11A) in the waveguide between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the second surface.
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 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 1-3, 7-8, 10, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erler et al. (US 2019/0187465) in view of Sinclair et al. (WO 2010/063116).
Regarding claim 1, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses an optical system comprising:
a waveguide (70) having a first surface and a second surface substantially opposite the first surface;
a reflective diffractive in-coupler (11B) in the waveguide between the first and second surfaces; and
a first transmissive diffractive in-coupler (11A) in the waveguide between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the second surface.
Erler et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Erler et al. is silent regarding wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is no greater than 400 nm. Sinclair et al. (figures 1-2) teaches Si waveguide having a thickness near 220 nm (see at least paragraphs 0028-0031). Therefore, 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 spacing as taught by Sinclair et al. in order to achieve a higher evanescent field than bulk field and provide a maximum field of view. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to since it was known in the art that a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being no greater than 400 nm. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being less than 400 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Therefore, Erler et al. as modified by Sinclair et al. teaches wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is no greater than 400 nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler has a grating period selected to couple blue light into the waveguide, and wherein the transmissive diffractive in-coupler has a grating period selected to couple red light into the waveguide (see at least paragraphs 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 3, Erler et al. as modified by Sinclair et al. (see at least paragraphs 0028-0031) teaches wherein the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the transmissive diffractive in-coupler is in the range of 200 nm to 350 nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses an image generator operative to provide an image at an input region including the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler (13; figure 4; see at least paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 8, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the optical system is configured to substantially replicate the image at at least one output pupil region, the output pupil region including at least one reflective diffractive out-coupler and at least one transmissive diffractive out-coupler (12A and 12B).
Regarding claim 10, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses an air gap between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler.
Regarding claim 13, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses an optical method comprising:
providing light having at least first and second colors at an input region of a waveguide, wherein the waveguide includes a first surface and a second surface substantially opposite the first surface, and wherein the input region includes a reflective diffractive in-coupler in the waveguide between the first and second surfaces and a first transmissive diffractive in-coupler in the waveguide between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the second surface (70);
coupling light of the first color into the waveguide using the reflective diffractive in-coupler (11A); and
coupling light of the second color into the waveguide using the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler (11B).
Erler et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above. However, Sinclair et al. (figures 1-2) teaches Si waveguide having a thickness near 220 nm (see at least paragraphs 0028-0031). Therefore, 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 spacing as taught by Sinclair et al. in order to achieve a higher evanescent field than bulk field and provide a maximum field of view. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to since it was known in the art that a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being no greater than 400 nm. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being less than 400 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Therefore, Erler et al. as modified by Sinclair et al. teaches wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is no greater than 400 nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler has a grating period selected to couple blue light into the waveguide, and wherein the transmissive diffractive in-coupler has a grating period selected to couple red light into the waveguide (see at least paragraphs 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 16, Erler et al. (figure 7) discloses a method of manufacturing an optical system, the method comprising:
forming a first diffraction grating on a first waveguide substrate layer (70, 11A, 11B);
forming a second diffraction grating on a second waveguide substrate layer; and
combining the first and second waveguide substrate layers into a combined waveguide with the first and second diffraction gratings on the interior of the combined waveguide
Erler et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 16 above. However, Erler et al. is silent regarding wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is no greater than 400 nm. Sinclair et al. (figures 1-2) teaches Si waveguide having a thickness near 220 nm (see at least paragraphs 0028-0031). Therefore, 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 spacing as taught by Sinclair et al. in order to achieve a higher evanescent field than bulk field and provide a maximum field of view. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to since it was known in the art that a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being no greater than 400 nm. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being less than 400 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Therefore, Erler et al. as modified by Sinclair et al. teaches wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is no greater than 400 nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Erler et al. as modified by Sinclair et al. (see at least paragraphs 0028-0031) teaches wherein the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the transmissive diffractive in-coupler is in the range of 200 nm to 350 nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Kress (figure 20) teaches wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler have different grating periods.
Regarding claim 19, Erler et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above. However, Erler et al. is silent regarding wherein a spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler is in the range of 200 nm to 350 nm. Kress (figure 20) teaches wherein the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the transmissive diffractive in-coupler is in the range of 200 nm to 350 nm. Therefore, 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 spacing as taught by Kress in order to provide a maximum field of view. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler being in the range of 200 nm to 350 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Kress (figure 20) teaches wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler have different grating periods.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erler et al. in view of Sinclair et al.; further in view of Kress (Optical waveguide combiners for AR headsets: features and limitation, Proc. Of Spie Vol. 11062 110620J-17).
Regarding claim 9, Erler et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Erler et al. is silent regarding d1M1<d2M2. Kress (figures 20 and 22) teaches wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler has a grating period d.sub.1 and is configured to in-couple light using diffractive order M.sub.1, the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler has a grating period d.sub.2 and is configured to in-coupler light using diffractive order M.sub.2, and wherein d1M1<d2M2 (figure 24). Therefore, 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 spacing as taught by Kress in order to provide a maximum field of view. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have d1M1<d2M2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Kress (figure 20) teaches wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler and the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler have different grating periods.
Regarding claim 12, Kress (figure 20) teaches wherein the reflective diffractive in-coupler has a grating period smaller than a grating period of the first transmissive diffractive in-coupler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lauren Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871