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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Inventorship
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 3/5/2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 12-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. in US 20210191180 A1 (hereinafter "Malhotra") in view of Han et al. in US 20200067278 A1 (hereinafter "Han").
Regarding claim 1, Malhotra discloses an augmented reality (AR) display device (an artificial reality system environment 100 in Fig. 1, is interpreted as the AR display device; focus is given to the optical see-through augmented reality system 400) comprising:
an optical engine (image source 412 is interpreted as the optical engine) configured to output light of a virtual image (412 may generate content for near-eye display and is interpreted as being configured to output light of a virtual image; see Para. 69); and a light guide plate (combiner 415 is interpreted as the light guide plate; see Fig. 4; see also Abstract and Para. 2, 16, 40, and 70) comprising a first region (input coupler 430 is interpreted as the first region) that receives the light of the virtual image (430 receives light of the virtual image from combiner 415), a third region (the region with output coupler 440 is interpreted as the third region) that outputs the light of the virtual image (440 receives light of the virtual image from substrate 420), and a second region (the region with substrate 420 is interpreted as the second region) that propagates the light of the virtual image (420 receives light of the virtual image from 430) input from the first region (430) toward the third region (440),
wherein a pupil expansion grating (420 acts as a pupil expansion grating and is interpreted as a pupil expansion grating; see Para. 69-74; see Fig. 4) is formed in the second region (420) to duplicate the light of the virtual image (see Para. 71 and 74) incident to the first region (430) into a plurality of beamlets (extracted light 460 is interpreted as a plurality of beamlets; see Fig. 4), and
in the third region (the region with 440), an output grating array (output coupler 440 is interpreted as an output grating array) is formed in which a plurality of small diffractive grating regions (440 is interpreted as having a plurality of small diffractive grating regions since it may include grating couplers such as volume holographic gratings or surface relief gratings, DOEs, prisms or the like; see Para. 71) are arranged at intervals equal to or less than a first size of a pupil, wherein a diameter of each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions is equal to or less than the first size of the pupil (the claimed interval spacing and size would necessarily be present in order to replicate the exit pupil; see Para. 71-74),
wherein light containing an entirety of the virtual image is output from each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (necessarily present due to the image replication performed; see also Para. 71-73), but fails to teach that the embodiment of Fig. 4 discloses that each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions comprises a circular boundary.
Malhotra suggests that each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions comprises a circular boundary (The possibilities for 440 include surface relief grating. Malhotra teaches a surface relief grating wherein each of a plurality of small diffractive grating regions comprises a circular boundary in Fig. 8c when the surface relief grating comprises cylindrical pillars 834; see also Para. 97-98; Malhotra suggests feature combinations in Para. 156 and 164).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the surface relief grating with regions with circular boundaries as taught by Malhotra as an obvious alternative feature of output coupler 440 in the Embodiment of Fig. 4 for the purpose of having increased control over the design of the grating coupler thereby achieving a grating coupler with desirable properties such as precise control over the direction and efficiency of diffracted light based on height, spacing, diameter, shape, and/or size, and since surface relief gratings, wherein each of a plurality of small diffractive grating regions comprises a circular boundary, were known alternatives of output couplers in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Malhotra fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (834) have larger diameters in an edge of the third region (440) than in a center of the third region (440; see Fig. 8D).Malhotra teaches in Para. 97-98 that “Cylindrical pillars 834 may have spatially varying dimensions, such as diameters, heights, or pitches”.
Han teaches similar nanostructures (155b) in Fig. 9 which have larger diameters in an edge than in a center. Also see Para. 93 and 96 which discusses their layout and design (specifically, size distribution and arrangement). Specifically, Han identifies that controlling these features results in the capability of creating meta-surface layers that can operate as concave or convex lenses dependent on the width of individual nanostructures in said layer, wherein creating a smaller central diameter will result in a concave lens. Malhotra also supports the use of concave or convex lenses (see Para. 40) in their system. Concave lens are well-known for their use as diverging lens which allow virtual images to be projected at a distance, a concept that is considered useful in VR/AR systems since it can result in an increased field-of-view and/or increased clarity and/or optical correction. Additionally, the examiner recognizes that a nanostructure operating as a lens is necessarily much thinner than a conventional lens.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of small diffractive grating regions have larger diameters in an edge of the third region than in a center of the third region as taught by Han in the AR display device of Malhotra for the purpose of reducing the device profile while achieving a desirable field-of-view and/or increased clarity and/or optical correction thereby achieving a more compact and desirable device.
Regarding claim 2, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein a small diffractive grating of each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions comprises one of a diffractive optical element, a surface relief grating, a hologram optical element, or a metasurface (see Para. 71 and 98).
Regarding claim 5, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the plurality of small diffractive grating regions are arranged in a hexagonal array pattern (see Fig. 8C which discloses a hexagonal array pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein a small diffractive grating of each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (440) comprises an identical or different vector (each region must necessarily have a vector and the vectors compared to each other must be either identical or different; the Abstract identifies that the gratings do have vectors, see also Para. 31).
Regarding claim 8, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein a pitch of the output grating array is uniform (in the combined embodiment of claim 1 where surface relief grating 820 with cylindrical pillars 834 was chosen as the output coupler 440, i.e., the interpreted output grating array, Para. 98 identifies that the pitch is similar, i.e., uniform).
Regarding claim 9, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, and further discloses that a pitch of the output grating array is varied (in the combined embodiment of claim 1 where surface relief grating 820 with cylindrical pillars 834 was chosen as the output coupler 440, i.e., the interpreted output grating array, Para. 98 identifies that the pitch is varied).
Regarding claim 12, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein at least a part of the third region (440) overlaps with the second region (420; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein at least a partial region of the light guide plate (415) is formed of a transparent material to pass light of a real scene through the transparent material (light from the real scene and the virtual image are combined in Fig. 4; this necessarily means that the substrate is transparent to light from the real scene; this is also a necessarily present feature of AR displays as an opaque substrate would be indicative of a VR display; see also Para. 71).
Regarding claim 16, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the intervals of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (see Fig. 4 and 8 both showing intervals of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions) are arranged to provide an eye motion box (eyebox 495 is interpreted as an eye motion box) with respect to translation of eyes vertically or horizontally (necessarily present since eyes may look at the device vertically or horizontally; see Para. 71), but fails to disclose that the eye motion box is wide.
The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Malhotra/Han teach a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Malhotra/Han does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 23, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the second region (420) at least partially overlaps (see Fig. 4 where 420 and 430 overlap in a planar direction) the first region (430) and propagates the light of the virtual image toward the third region (440) by total internal reflection (Fig. 4 shows light that propagates from 430 through 420 to 440 via total internal reflection), and
wherein the pupil expansion grating (420 acts as a pupil expansion grating and is interpreted as a pupil expansion grating; see Para. 69-74; see Fig. 4) is formed in the second region (420) to duplicate the light of the virtual image (see Para. 71 and 74) incident to the first region (430) into a plurality of beamlets (extracted light 460 is interpreted as a plurality of beamlets; see Fig. 4) that expand along two axes (see Para. 74) while propagating toward the third region by total internal reflection (Fig. 4 shows light that propagates from 430 through 420 to 440 via total internal reflection).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. in US 20210191180 A1 (hereinafter "Malhotra") in view of Han et al. in US 20200067278 A1 (hereinafter "Han") as evidenced by Lee in (US 20210124108 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 asdiscussed above, and further teaches diffractive gratings necessarily have grating vectors (Malhotra Fig. 7A and 7B both show exemplary grating vectors K), wherein an input diffractive grating (input coupler 430 may be a diffractive optical element; see Para. 70) is formed in the first region (430) to couple a received light of the virtual image (see Fig. 4) to the second region (420), and a sum of a first grating vector of the input diffractive grating of the first region (430), a second grating vector of the pupil expansion grating of the second region (420), and a third grating vector of a small diffractive grating of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (440), but Malhotra/Han fails to disclose that the sum of the vectors is equal to 0.
Grating vectors are known variables dependent on factors such as: front and back slant angles, the grating fill factor, the potential coating(s), the grating depth, refractive indices of the grating structure, grating base, grating coating, grating top layer, and/or underlying waveguide. That is to say, grating vectors can be optimized with a variety of structural and/or material choices that can be controlled and optimized to help achieve a desired grating vector.
Additionally, "k-vector" diagrams usually more clearly show that the desired grating vectors of the three base grating regions ideally sum to zero and that the zero-sum is a means of preventing distorted views. (The examiner notes that Applicant and Malhotra/Han do not depict k-vector sum diagrams, but the diagram is not necessary for the feature to be present. However, a zero-sum k-vector diagram is well-known in the art as evidenced by Lee (See Fig. 6A.; Para. 63). Note that either triangle vector path can begin and end at the same point and thus be interpreted as a zero-sum).
The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Malhotra/Han teach a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Malhotra/Han does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 4 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. in US 20210191180 A1 (hereinafter "Malhotra") in view of Han et al. in US 20200067278 A1 (hereinafter "Han") as applied above, and in view of Exit pupil, Wikipedia, May 8, 2020 (hereinafter "Wikipedia").
Regarding claim 4, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that a second size of each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (834) is equal to or less than about 4 millimeters (mm). However, the exit pupil of a device or instrument ought to be less than or equal to the entrance pupil of the user’s eye (see Exit pupil, Wikipedia, page 1). Para. 66 of Malhotra identifies the pupil to be around 2.5mm. Wikipedia further supports that pupils can range from around 4.7mm to 2.3mm depending on the viewer’s age (see Table) and that exit pupils and entrance pupils should be of similar size (see page 1). The exit pupil size is directly related to the second size of each of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions and if a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wanted the exit pupil and entrance pupil to be of similar size, they would have obviously chosen a second size of about 4mm or less, especially since doing so would have resulted in a desirable amount of light entering the eye, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 (or claim 4, respectively) as discussed above, wherein a beam width of a plurality of light beams (necessarily present) emitted from the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (the combination where 440 contains a surface relief grating will necessarily have small diffractive grating regions present) but fails to explicitly teach that the beam width is maintained at less than a diameter of a pupil (approximately 2.5mm according to Para. 66 or 2.3 to 4.7mm according to Wikipedia) according to a size of a diameter of each small diffractive grating region of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (beam width is necessarily dependent on the size of any output structure including the size of a diameter of each small diffractive grating region of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions), regardless of change in a thickness of a crystalline lens of an eye (the structure of the device does not depend upon the thickness of a crystalline lens of a human eye), such that a virtual image remains in focus regardless of a gaze distance of a user (the virtual image will remain in focus regardless of the user’s gaze distance so long as the focal point can be adjusted on the retina of the eye, which the device is necessarily capable of; see Para. 73).
Wikipedia teaches that the entrance pupil and exit pupil should be of similar size. Accordingly, the exit pupil size is the same thing as the beam width. They both represent the diameter of a light beam exiting the optical device. The entrance pupil is the approximate size of the human pupil at time of device usage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not want the beam width to be larger than the human pupil since some light will be unable to enter the eye causing vignetting (see Wikipedia, page 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the beam width be less than a diameter of a pupil in the device of Malhotra/Han or the device of Malhotra/Han/Wikipedia for the purpose of preventing vignetting thereby achieving a more comfortable viewing experience for the user.
Regarding claim 18, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the intervals of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions (see Fig. 4 and 8 both showing intervals of the plurality of small diffractive grating regions) are arranged to provide an eye motion box (eyebox 495 is interpreted as an eye motion box) with respect to translation of eyes vertically or horizontally (necessarily present since eyes may look at the device vertically or horizontally; see Para. 71), but fails to disclose that the eye motion box is wide.
The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Malhotra/Han teach a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Malhotra/Han does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. in US 20210191180 A1 (hereinafter "Malhotra") in view of Han et al. in US 20200067278 A1 (hereinafter "Han") as applied above, and in view of Malhotra et al. in US 20210191180 A1- Embodiment 2 (hereinafter "Malhotra 2").
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Malhotra/Han discloses the AR display device of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach the device is:
further comprising a body having the optical engine (412) and the light guide plate (415) installed therein and configured to be wearable on a user (claim 14); and
wherein the body comprises a glasses frame, a goggles frame, a first main body of a helmet body, and a second main body of a head mounted display (HMD) (claim 15).
Malhotra 2 teaches a device further comprising a body (body 220; see Fig. 2) having the optical engine and the light guide plate installed therein (necessarily present feature of the combined invention; see Para. 57) and configured to be wearable on a user (head strap 230 allows the device to be worn by a user; see Fig. 2; see Para. 56) (claim 14); and
wherein the body (220) comprises a glasses frame (bottom side 223 is interpreted as the glasses frame since it must hold the optics), a goggles frame (front side 225 is interpreted as a goggles frame since it holds the interpreted glasses frame), a first main body of a helmet body (left side 227 is interpreted as a first main body of a helmet body), and a second main body of a head mounted display (HMD) (right side is interpreted as a second main body of a head-mounted display) (claim 15).
Malhotra supports combination of various aspects in Para. 141, 155-156, and 164.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frame and bodies of Malhotra 2 in the AR display device of Malhotra/Han for the purpose of protecting the user thereby achieving a more desirable product.
Conclusion
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.
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 20110019258 A1
US 20180003805 A1
US 20180129866 A1
US 20200217985 A1
US 20200135703 A1
US 20210141146 A1
US 20220011567 A
US 20230139244 A1
US 20220317542 A1
US 20250040412 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights