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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 21st, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objection(s) to the claims has/have been withdrawn by the examiner in light of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection to claim 15 under 35. U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
The rejections to claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn as they are moot due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejections to claims 2-5, 8-10, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn as they are moot due to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 21st, 2025 has been fully considered and entered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant States: “The pending claims have been amended to recite a spherical lightguide. Popovich fails to disclose or suggest a spherical lightguide but rather relates to cylindrical GRINs. The examiner cites Figures 26 and 27 as showing spherical surfaces. However, Popovich at col. 10, lines 28 and 32, describes these figures as representing cylindrical GRINs. Rays in spherical GRINs will behave very differently than in cylinders, because in a sphere the light in the plane of the sphere shells will converge again, not so in a cylinder where it will continue to diverge... Popovich fails to anticipate the presently claimed invention since each and every claim feature is not disclosed therein.”
Applicant amended the claims to specify the geometry of the previously claimed lightguide. The amendment narrows the claimed lightguide to a spherical configuration without changing the underlying device or function.
The examiner acknowledges that the cylindrical waveguides of Popovich are not spherical waveguides. However, spherical shell waveguides are known in the art and their advantages have been explored in the prior art of record before the priority date of the instant application.
Blomstedt (WO 2019122527 A1) teaches a spherical shell waveguide defined by two concentric spherical principal surfaces between which light propagates by repeated internal reflection. Blomstedt additionally cites Saarikko (US 8830584 B2), which is directed toward spherical waveguides (Saarikko, Figure 3) and teaches the behavior of light in spherical waveguides, making the convergent behavior of light in a spherical waveguide and its benefits known to a skilled artisan before the priority date of the claimed invention.
As such, the prior art establishes that spherical waveguides and their beneficial properties in display environments are known to a skilled artisan.
Applicant States: “Basset is cited for disclosing a light source. However, Basset does not disclose or suggest a spherical lightguide and therefore fails to make up for the deficiencies noted above with respect to Popovich.”
The examiner agrees that Basset does not resolve the spherical lightguide deficiencies.
The examiner presents Blomstedt to remedy these deficiencies, which is described above and also below in the ensuing rejection.
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, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al. (US 10437064 B2) in view of Blomstedt (WO 2019122527 A1).
Regarding claim 1;
Popovich et al. discloses an optical apparatus for guiding and projecting light, comprising:
a lightguide (Figure 2, GRIN lightguide 10) comprised of a transmission medium (Figure 5, the medium of the light guide) having a first curved outer surface and a second curved outer surface and in at least one cross-section of the lightguide (Figure 5 depicts a first and second curved outer surface in at least one cross section of the lightguide), the first curved outer surface and the second curved outer surface are substantially concentric around a point (Figure 26 and 27 disclose a GRIN lightguide that is concentric around a point),
the transmission medium having a gradient index of refraction that decreases as function of increasing distance from the point (paragraph 36 discloses that the fibers have a “…radially varying index”, which Figure 1 confirms is decreasing about the y-coordinate “0”).
the gradient index of refraction extending from the first curved surface to the second curved surface (Figure 1, the index varies along the y coordinates -1 and 1 centered on 0, which represent the two surfaces);
and at least one light extraction element (Figure 6, extraction waveguide 51) disposed to extract light from the transmission medium and direct the light generally toward the point.
Popovich does not disclose a spherical waveguide.
Blomstedt discloses spherical waveguides (Figures 6-11, Figure 4) and their construction, as well as their optical properties (p. 12 ln. 30-31 and p. 13 ln. 1-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in Popovich to utilize a spherical waveguide geometry in place of the cylindrical waveguide disclosed, using methods and routine design oversight known by a skilled artisan. Both types of waveguides utilize the same physical principals for operation and the teachings of Blomstedt provide a waveguide with the additional benefit of preserving ray propagation behavior and convergent ray behavior with minimal loss.
Regarding claim 6;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
The gradient index of refraction decreases monotonically as a function of increasing distance from the point (Figure 1, ‘the point’ is at zero, the gradient index decreases monotonically as we depart from 0 in either direction).
Regarding claim 7;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first curved outer surface and second curved outer surface are spherical surfaces substantially concentric around the point (Figure 6 shows that the surfaces are spherical from a top-down view, and Figures 26 and 27 depict them being substantially concentric around the point), and the gradient index is a spherical gradient index having a center point at the point (Figure 1 shows the variation of the refractive index about the point, the examiner interprets the cut-off parabolic distribution to be ‘spherical’, as it is based off a spherically symmetric spatial distribution, shown best in Figures 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 11;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
The gradient index of refraction is present at substantially all locations between the first curved surface and the second curved surface (Figure 1, ‘the point’ is at zero, the gradient index exists at all points as we depart from 0 in either direction, and -1 and 1 define the two curved surfaces).
Regarding claim 12;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first curved outer surface and second curved outer surface are cylindrical surfaces substantially concentric around a center line (Figures 26 and 27 depict them being substantially concentric around the center, and also cylindrical), and the gradient index of refraction is a cylindrical gradient index of refraction having a center point at the point (Figure 1 shows the variation of the refractive index about the point, the examiner interprets the cut-off parabolic distribution to be ‘cylindrical’ as it is based off a cylindrically symmetric spatial distribution).
Regarding claim 17;
Popovich et al. teaches a spherical lightguide (Figure 2, GRIN lightguide 10 is curved), comprising:
A transmission medium (Figure 5, the medium of the light guide) having a first curved outer surface and a second curved outer surface and in at least one cross-section of the lightguide (Figure 5 depicts a first and second curved outer surface in at least one cross section of the lightguide), the first curved outer surface and the second curved outer surface substantially concentric around a point (Figure 26 and 27 disclose a GRIN lightguide that is concentric around a point),
the transmission medium having a gradient index of refraction that decreases as a function of increasing distance from the point (paragraph 36 discloses that the fibers have a “…radially varying index”, which Figure 1 confirms is decreasing about the y-coordinate “0”),
the gradient index of refraction extending from the first curved surface to the second curved surface (Figure 1, the index varies along the y coordinates -1 and 1 centered on 0, which represent the two surfaces);
Regarding claim 18;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein:
the first curved outer surface and second curved outer surface are spherical surfaces substantially concentric around the point (Figure 6 shows that the surfaces are spherical from a top-down view, and Figures 26 and 27 depict them being substantially concentric around the point), and the gradient index of refraction is a spherical gradient index of refraction having a center point at the point (Figure 1 shows the variation of the refractive index about the point, the examiner interprets the cut-off parabolic distribution to be ‘spherical’, as it is based off a spherically symmetric spatial distribution, shown best in Figures 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 19;
Popovich et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein:
the first curved outer surface and second curved outer surface are cylindrical surfaces substantially concentric around a center line (Figures 26 and 27 depict them being substantially concentric around the center, and also cylindrical), and the gradient index of refraction is a cylindrical gradient index having a center point at the point (Figure 1 shows the variation of the refractive index about the point, the examiner interprets the cut-off parabolic distribution to be ‘cylindrical’ as it is based off a cylindrically symmetric spatial distribution).
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al. (US 10437064 B2) in view of Blomstedt (WO 2019122527 A1), and further in view of Basset et al. (US 20200096767 A1).
Regarding claim 2;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt discloses the device of claim 1.
Popovich et al. does not disclose that the apparatus further comprises a light source (Figure 2, input collimated light 1010 enters input surface 13, but no light source is defined).
Basset et al. discloses an optical device with a curved optical lightguide (Figure 20, waveguiding layer 20 is interpreted as a lightguide, and paragraph 99 states that it may be a gradient index material), wherein: the apparatus further comprises a light source (Figure 20, light emitter 110) to project light into the lightguide.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to include a light guide as described in Basset et al. While the claimed invention of the instant application already includes incoming light rays, Basset et al. specifically teaches a light emitting device 110. This light source could be used and placed using methods known to the art, and would predictably allow the lightguide to guide light, ensuring device function.
Regarding claim 3;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 2, wherein:
Basset et al. discloses that the light source is configured and arrange to project light into an edge of the lightguide (Figure 20, light emitter 110 emits light into the edge of lightguide 20; this is also illustrated in Figures 18 and 19 for the same embodiment).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the light source of claim 2 to project light into an edge of the lightguide. This could be accomplished using routine placement techniques known to the art, and would predictably result in optical projection of light into the lightguide such that the maximum amount of light is directed downstream to the rest of the device with minimal loss.
Regarding claim 4;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 2, wherein:
Basset et al. teaches that the light source is adapted to emit light within a visible band (Abstract, “configured to guide…light modes in the visible wavelength range” implies that the incoming light must also be in the visible band).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the light source in the device of claim 2 to emit light in the visible wavelength range. This could be accomplished using light sources and materials known to the art, and would predictably result in a device which guides light in the visible part of the spectrum for human use.
Regarding claim 5;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 4, wherein:
Basset et al. discloses that the light source is adapted to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band (paragraph 115 details the configurability of the wavelengths and spectral widths of light from the light emitter, “having narrow spectral widths”, “the wavelength can be predetermined”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adapt the light source of claim 4 to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band. The light emitter could be configured using methods known to the art, like changing the diffraction efficiency of a grating or using resonant waveguides. This would predictably result in a device with greater color control and accuracy, reduced crosstalk or aberrations, and compatibility with filters and various optical components commonly found in the art.
Regarding claim 8;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt discloses the device of claim 7.
Popovich et al. does not disclose that the apparatus further comprises a light source arranged to project light into the lightguide (Figure 2, input collimated light 1010 enters input surface 13, but no light source is defined).
Basset et al. discloses an optical device with a curved optical lightguide (Figure 20, waveguiding layer 20 is interpreted as a lightguide, and paragraph 99 states that it may be a gradient index material), wherein the apparatus further comprises a light source (Figure 20, light emitter 110) to project light into the lightguide.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 7 to include a light guide as described in Basset et al. While the claimed invention of the instant application already includes incoming light rays, Basset et al. specifically teaches a light emitting device 110. This light source could be used and placed using methods known to the art, and would predictably allow the lightguide to guide light, ensuring device function.
Regarding claim 9;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 8, wherein:
Basset et al. teaches that the light source is adapted to emit light within a visible band (Abstract, “configured to guide…light modes in the visible wavelength range” implies that the incoming light must also be in the visible band).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the light source in the device of claim 8 to emit light in the visible wavelength range. This could be accomplished using light sources and materials known to the art, and would predictably result in a device which guides light in the visible part of the spectrum for human use.
Regarding claim 10;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 8, wherein:
Basset et al. discloses that the light source is adapted to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band (paragraph 115 details the configurability of the wavelengths and spectral widths of light from the light emitter, “having narrow spectral widths”, “the wavelength can be predetermined”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adapt the light source of claim 8 to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band. The light emitter could be configured using methods known to the art, like changing the diffraction efficiency of a grating or using resonant waveguides. This would predictably result in a device with greater color control and accuracy, reduced crosstalk or aberrations, and compatibility with filters and various optical components commonly found in the art.
Regarding claim 13;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt discloses the device of claim 12.
Popovich et al. does not disclose that the apparatus further comprises a light source (Figure 2, input collimated light 1010 enters input surface 13, but no light source is defined).
Basset et al. discloses an optical device with a curved optical lightguide (Figure 20, curved waveguiding layer 20 is interpreted as a lightguide, and paragraph 99 states that it may be a gradient index material), wherein: the apparatus further comprises a light source (Figure 20, light emitter 110) arranged to project light into the lightguide.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 12 to include a light guide as described in Basset et al. While the claimed invention of the instant application already includes incoming light rays, Basset et al. specifically teaches a light emitting device 110. This light source could be used and placed using methods known to the art, and would predictably allow the lightguide to guide light, ensuring device function.
Regarding claim 14;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 12, wherein:
Popovich et al. discloses that the lightguide has a flat side (Figure 5 and/or 6 depict that the entry point of the light guide is flat),
Popovich et al. does not specifically teach the device of claim 12, further comprising a light source, but any incoming light will necessarily be projected through input surface 13.
Basset et al. teaches a light source for projecting light into a curved lightguide (Figure 20, curved waveguiding layer 20 is interpreted as a lightguide, and paragraph 99 states that it may be a gradient index material).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of claim 12 to include the light source taught in Basset et al., such that the light is projected into the input surface 13 taught in Popovich et al. This would result in an apparatus where a light source projects light into a flat side of a light guide, and could be accomplished using materials, devices, and routine placement techniques known to the art. This change would predictably result in an apparatus which most efficiently couples with the light, is simpler in terms of optical alignment, and which is capable of performing the total internal reflection characteristic of lightguides in this application with minimal loss.
Regarding claim 15;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 12, wherein:
Basset et al. teaches that the light source is adapted to emit light within a visible band (Abstract, “configured to guide…light modes in the visible wavelength range” implies that the incoming light must also be in the visible band).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the light source in the device of claim 12 to emit light in the visible wavelength band. This could be accomplished using light sources and materials known to the art, and would predictably result in a device which guides light in the visible part of the spectrum for human use.
Regarding claim 16;
Popovich et al. in view of Blomstedt, and further in view of Basset et al. discloses the device of claim 15, wherein:
Basset et al. discloses that the light source is adapted to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band (paragraph 115 details the configurability of the wavelengths and spectral widths of light from the light emitter, “having narrow spectral widths”, “the wavelength can be predetermined”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adapt the light source of claim 15 to emit light at one or more discrete wavelengths within the visible band. The light emitter could be configured using methods known to the art, like changing the diffraction efficiency of a grating or using resonant waveguides. This would predictably result in a device with greater color control and accuracy, reduced crosstalk or aberrations, and compatibility with filters and various optical components commonly found in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874