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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed February 17, 2023.
This application is also a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 for PCT international application number PCT/GB2021/052118 filed August 16, 2021 and published February 24, 2022 as PCT publication no. WO 2022038342 A1.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as August 20, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (here, there are two that were filed on this same day: UNITED KINGDOM 2012986.2 and EP 20275133.5) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent applications.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as February 17, 2023, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
GB
202012986
08/20/2020
GB 202012986 D0
10/07/2020
EP
20275133
08/20/2020
EP 3958021 A1
02/23/2022
EP
21758416
08/16/2021
EP 4200655 A1
06/28/2023
GB
202111716
08/16/2021
GB 202111716 D0
GB 2599004 A
GB 2599004 B
09/29/2021
03/23/2022
10/30/2024
CN
202180050443
08/16/2021
CN 115956215 A
04/11/2023
KR
20237009303
08/16/2021
KR 20230052292 A
04/19/2023
GB
PCT/GB2021/052118
08/16/2021
WO 2022038342 A1
02/24/2022
The claims filed February 17, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 13, & 18
1, 5, 6, 8, 11-14, & 18
Cancelled:
none
4, 9, 10, & 16
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
14-20
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1, 13, and 18 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, and 17-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the third action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190121126 of Simmonds (Simmonds, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180011324 of Popovich et al. (Popovich, cited by Applicant) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100214659 of Levola (Levola).
With respect to claim 1, Simmonds discloses an optical waveguide (Figs. 2-5, ¶¶ ) comprising:
a light guiding layer (optical waveguide (1), ¶ 31) including a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) that is opposite the first surface (top, and opposite per the Figures);
an input diffractive element (input Bragg grating (2)) comprising a surface relief grating (¶ 17, "One, some or each of the diffractive parts may comprise a Bragg grating. One or more (e.g., each) diffractive part may comprise a surface profile grating (e.g., a surface profile Bragg grating).” Surface profile gratings are a type of surface relief grating.) formed on the first surface (top) of the light guiding layer (1), and
an anti-contaminant layer (meta-material 10; ¶ 31, "Those external surfaces (7, 8) of the waveguide against which guided light (61, 62) reflects internally are coated with a meta-material (9, 10) having a refractive index of value less than 1.0 (one).") on the second surface (bottom) of the light guiding layer (1),
the anti-contaminant layer (10) overlapping (when viewing from the bottom at, say FOV 30 of Fig. 4) the surface relief grating (2) and spaced apart from (per the Figures) the surface relief grating (2),
wherein the anti-contaminant layer (10) has substantially no impact on a total internal reflection of light at an interface of the light guiding layer (1) over a desired field of view bandwidth (¶ 34, "This refractive index value is no greater than that of air and therefore the meta-material is able, when n=1.0 (approx.), to at least provide a protective covering upon an otherwise exposed glass waveguide surface without detriment to the optical performance of the waveguide—i.e., the meta-material may at least optically ‘mimic’ air.” Also, seen as so configured; see "same product/same features" analysis below),
wherein a refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is approximately equal to a product of a refractive index of the light guiding layer (1) multiplied by a sine of the desired field of view field-angle bandwidth inside the light guiding layer (1) (see “same product/same features” analysis below), and
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is generally less than 1000 nm (per the tables on page 5 of Simmonds, ¶ 53 et seq);
wherein the light guiding layer (1) receives the light at the first surface (top) of the light guiding layer (1) through the surface relief grating (2) formed on the first surface (top) of the light guiding layer (1) and the received light undergoes the total internal reflection (Fig. 4; ¶ 31, diffracted display light 61, 62 reflects internally to light guide 1) in the light guiding layer (1) after passing through the surface relief grating (2; incoming light must pass through the surface relief grating for diffraction to occur) that is on the first surface (top) of the light guiding layer (1).
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because Simmonds as set forth above provides the structure of claim 1, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 1. This includes:
wherein a refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer is approximately equal to a product of a refractive index of the light guiding layer multiplied by a sine of the desired field of view field-angle bandwidth inside the light guiding layer.
Apparently, such a relationship is inherent for all optical structures per Applicant’s response to the previous § 112(a/¶ 1) rejection in the action of January 27, 2026.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
Simmonds as set forth above does not disclose
an input diffractive element comprising a surface relief grating that includes a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating, the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer;
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is greater than about 1 µm;
wherein the light guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer.
Levola discloses a diffractive beam expander and a virtual display based on a diffractive beam expander that includes (Fig. 2A, ¶ 57 et seq.):
an input diffractive element (input grating 10) comprising a surface relief grating ("The gratings and the grating portions may be e.g., surface relief gratings implemented by molding or embossing on either of the planar surfaces 41, 42 (FIG. 2a) ") that includes a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating (per Fig. 2A), the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A) and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A);
wherein the light guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an input grating placed within the light guiding layer along the lines of Levola in a system according to Simmonds as set forth above in order to provide optical alternative and/or capture light in an alternative manner. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a coated waveguide) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an input diffractive element comprising a surface relief grating that includes a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating, the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer;
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is greater than about 1 µm;
wherein the light guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer.
Popovich discloses an environmentally isolated waveguide display that includes (Fig. 31, ¶ 99 and adjacent):
"Typically, the overall thickness [of the device shown in Fig. 31] is around 4.4 mm. with the upper glass layer being equal in thickness to the waveguide stack comprising layers 261-266."
With the upper glass layer being 2.2mm, this leaves the remaining 2.2mm for the remaining four (4) layers with the average layer being 0.55mm in thickness. 0.55mm is much thicker than 1µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thicker layer along the lines of Popovich layer 263 at/about the grating along the lines of Popovich in a system according to Simmonds as set forth above in order to provide an anti-contaminant layer with greater mechanical protection. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a coated waveguide) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is greater than about 1 μm.
Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above would provide:
an input diffractive element comprising a surface relief grating that includes a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating, the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer;
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is greater than about 1 µm;
wherein the light guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer.
With respect to claim 2, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, including one wherein
a refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is between approximately 1.0 and 1.5.
In transition zone between the anti-contaminant portion of Simmonds with an index of refraction of approximately 1 or less and the layer portion of Popovich with an index of refraction of approximately 1.315, a transition index of refraction between the two ends of the spectrum is seen. Per ¶ 22, "In one embodiment the grating layer comprises a grating sandwiched by transparent substrates, the grating layer and the substrates having similar refractive indices."
With respect to claim 3, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, including one wherein
a refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is between approximately 1.1 and 1.3.
The transition zone of claim 2 is seen to include the range of 1.1-1.3 for the index of refraction.
With respect to claim 5, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, including one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) comprises a polymer layer.
Consistent with the materials in Popovich, the adhesive material is seen as a polymer.
With respect to claim 6, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, including one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) comprises a protective layer bonded to the anti-contaminant layer (10).
Per Fig. 31 of Popovich at 263 and claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 7, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 6, including one wherein
the refractive index of the protective layer (Popovich 263, refractive index 1.315 approximately) is greater than the refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer (Simmonds 9, 10 with a refractive index of 1 or less).
With respect to claim 8, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 6, including one wherein
there is substantially no air gap between the protective layer and the anti-contaminant layer (10).
Per the combination of claim 1 and Popovich Fig. 31 at 263.
With respect to claim 11, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) is substantially transparent with a visible light transmission of at least about 80%.
Popovich discloses (claim 16) that "said grating layer comprises a grating sandwiched by transparent substrates, said grating layer and said substrates having similar refractive indices."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transparent media along the lines of Popovich in a system according to Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above in order to reduce light signal/visual attenuation. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a coated waveguide) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
With respect to claim 12, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) is substantially transparent with a visible light transmission of at least about 95%.
See claim 11, above as the anti-contaminant layer is substantially transparent.
With respect to claim 13, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses:
a light-guiding layer (Simmonds optical waveguide (1), ¶ 31) including a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) that is opposite the first surface (top, and opposite per the Figures); and
an input diffractive element (Levola Fig. 2A, ¶ 57 et seq., input grating 10) comprising a surface relief grating ("The gratings and the grating portions may be e.g., surface relief gratings implemented by molding or embossing on either of the planar surfaces 41, 42 (FIG. 2a) ") that includes a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating (per Fig. 2A), the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A) and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A); and
an anti-contaminant layer (Simmonds, meta-material 10; ¶ 31, "Those external surfaces (7, 8) of the waveguide against which guided light (61, 62) reflects internally are coated with a meta-material (9, 10) having a refractive index of value less than 1.0 (one).") formed on the second surface (bottom) of the light-guiding layer (1),
the anti-contaminant layer (10) overlapping (when viewing from the bottom at, say FOV 30 of Fig. 4) the surface relief grating (2) and spaced apart (per the Figures) from the surface relief grating (2),
wherein the anti-contaminant layer (10) has substantially no impact on a total internal reflection of light at an interface of the light-guiding layer (1) over a desired field-angle bandwidth (¶ 34, "This refractive index value is no greater than that of air and therefore the meta-material is able, when n=1.0 (approx.), to at least provide a protective covering upon an otherwise exposed glass waveguide surface without detriment to the optical performance of the waveguide—i.e., the meta-material may at least optically ‘mimic’ air.” Also, seen as so configured; see "same product/same features" analysis above),
wherein the light-guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light-guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light-guiding layer (per Levola Fig. 2A) and
the received light undergoes the total internal reflection (Simmonds, Fig. 4; ¶ 31, diffracted display light 61, 62 reflects internally to light guide 1) in the light-guiding layer (1) after passing through the surface relief grating (2) that is on the first surface (top) of the light-guiding layer (1).
See claim 1.
Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above does not disclose:
a head-up display comprising the foregoing elements.
Popovich ¶ 104 provides:
"Although the invention has been discussed in relation to a near eye display it should be apparent from consideration of the drawings that the invention may also be used in other displays such as Head Up Displays."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a device according to Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above in a head-up or similar display system according to Popovich in order to provide visual input/transmission to a user. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a coated waveguide for a wearable display) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a head-up display comprising the foregoing elements.
With respect to claim 14, Simmonds in view of Popovich as set forth above discloses the head-up display of claim 13, including one wherein
a refractive index of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is approximately equal to a product of the refractive index of the light-guiding layer multiplied by a sine of a desired field of view field-angle bandwidth inside the light-guiding layer.
See claim 1 re same product/same features.
With respect to claim 15, Simmonds in view of Popovich as set forth above discloses the head-up display of claim 13, including one wherein
a thickness of the anti-contaminant layer (10) is greater than about 1 μm.
Per Popovich in claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 17, Simmonds in view of Popovich as set forth above discloses the head-up display of claim 13, including one wherein
the head-up display comprises a head-mounted display.
Popovich, ¶ 4, "Optical waveguide devices are being developed for a range of display applications such as Head Mounted Displays (HMDs) and Heads Up Displays (HUDs)."
With respect to claim 18, Simmonds in view of Levola and Popovich as set forth above discloses an optical waveguide, comprising:
a light guiding layer (optical waveguide (1), ¶ 31) including a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) that is opposite the first surface (top, and opposite per the Figures);
an input diffractive element (Levola Fig. 2A, ¶ 57 et seq., input grating 10) comprising a surface relief grating ("The gratings and the grating portions may be e.g., surface relief gratings implemented by molding or embossing on either of the planar surfaces 41, 42 (FIG. 2a) ") that includes a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) that is opposite the first surface of the surface relief grating (per Fig. 2A), the first surface of the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A) and the second surface of the surface relief grating disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the light guiding layer (per Fig. 2A); and
an anti-contaminant layer (Simmonds, meta-material 10; ¶ 31, "Those external surfaces (7, 8) of the waveguide against which guided light (61, 62) reflects internally are coated with a meta-material (9, 10) having a refractive index of value less than 1.0 (one).") on the second surface (bottom) of the light guiding layer (1),
the anti-contaminant layer (10) overlapping (when viewing from the bottom at, say FOV 30 of Fig. 4) the surface relief grating (2) and spaced apart from (per the Figures) the surface relief grating (2),
wherein the anti-contaminant layer (10) being is configured such that any contaminants on a surface of the anti-contaminant layer (10) have substantially no effect on a propagation of light with the light-guiding layer (1; seen as inherent as the layer would otherwise not be one to provide anti-contamination.),
wherein the light-guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface of the light-guiding layer through the surface relief grating formed on the first surface of the light-guiding layer (per Levola Fig. 2A) and
the received light undergoes the total internal reflection (Simmonds, Fig. 4; ¶ 31, diffracted display light 61, 62 reflects internally to light guide 1) in the light-guiding layer (1) after passing through the surface relief grating (2) that is on the first surface (top) of the light-guiding layer (1).
See claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 19, Simmonds in view of Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide of claim 18, including one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) comprises a material having a refractive index close to that of air.
Simmonds ¶ 31 per claim 1, above; "a meta-material (9, 10) having a refractive index of value less than 1.0 (one)."
With respect to claim 20, Simmonds in view of Popovich as set forth above discloses the optical waveguide of claim 18, including one wherein
the anti-contaminant layer (10) comprises a material comprising a polymer having a porous structure.
Seen as inherent as at some level, polymers provide pores, even as between the strands.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 17, 2026 with respect to the outstanding claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection as different art is now applied to the rejected claims in light of Applicant’s amendment(s).
Applicant argues that the surface relief grating is in the wrong place for the combination under § 103 to read on the claims. Levola resolves this issue for both the first and second surfaces as well as how the light guiding layer initially receives the light at the first surface.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20230296812 A1 published September 21, 2023 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related waveguide systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
March 7, 2026