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 Amendment
The amendments filed 02/19/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026, with respect to claims 21-25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. They are partially persuasive and that is reflected in the allowable subject matter of claims 22 and 24-25.
Applicant argues that Wall does not disclose reflecting a second portion of the rays between the front side coating and the back side coating based on a common reflective waveband of the front side coating and the back side coating. Applicant argues that Wall only describes ghost rays or leaked light rather than the claimed second portion of rays. Applicant argues that Wall does not disclose out-coupling the second portion of the rays from the guide front side. Applicant argues that Wall’s coating are described as reducing leakage rather than reflecting a second portion of rays. Applicant argues that Wall fails to disclose a common reflective waveband of the front side coating and the back side coating.
Regarding applicants argument that Wall does not disclose reflecting a second portion of the rays between the front side coating and the back side coating based on a common reflective waveband of the front side coating and the back side coating. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wall discloses a waveguide having a front-side surface 108 and a back side surface 110, and further discloses that a coating may be applied to one or both of these major surfaces. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Wall teaches a guide front side with a front side coating an a guide back side with a back side coating. Wall further teaches that the coating has angle-and wavelength dependent reflective characteristics, including high reflectance for light within a specific wavelength range for higher angles. Accordingly, Wall teaches reflecting rays based on a reflective waveband of the coatings. Because the claim does not require any magnitude of reflection, any particular number of reflections, or any special structure beyond the front side and back side coating having a common reflective waveband, Walls disclosure is considered to satisfy the claimed reflecting of the second portion between the front side coating and the back side coating.
Regarding applicants argument that Wall only describes ghost rays or leaked light rather than the claimed second portion of rays. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 21 does not exclude ghost rays, leakage related rays, or rays that may contribute to undesired special effects. Rather, claim 21 broadly recites “a second portion of the rays”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed second portion encompasses any subset of the rays coupled into the guide that are reflected based on the coatings common reflective waveband. Thus, even if Wall describes certain rays as ghost rays or leakage related rays, such rays still constitute a portion of the rays and are not excluded by the claim language.
Regarding applicants argument that Wall does not disclose out-coupling the second portion of the rays from the guide front side. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 21 does not require that the second portion be intentionally used as desired image light, nor does the claim require that the second portion be out-coupled only within a primary output angular range. The claim merely requires “out coupling the first portion and the second portion of the rays from the guide front side”. Wall discloses light reaching and exiting at the output region on the guide front side. Under BRI any portion of the rays that exits from the guide front side at the output region is considered out-coupled, regardless of whether Wall characterizes such rays as desirable output or as ghosting. Therefore, Wall is considered to disclose out coupling of both the first portion and the second portion of the rays from the guide front side.
Regarding applicants argument that Wall’s coating are described as reducing leakage rather than reflecting a second portion of rays. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A disclosure that a coating reduces leakage by exhibiting high reflectance for light within a specified wavelength range and angular range necessarily teaches that at least some rays are reflected by the coating rather than transferred through the interface. Thus, Walls disclosure that the coating reduces refractive leakage by reflecting light within a specified wavelength range is reasonably understood as teaching the claimed second portion of the rays reflected between the front side coating and the back side coating.
Regarding applicants argument that Wall fails to disclose a common reflective waveband of the front side coating and the back side coating. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wall teaches that coatings on the waveguide major surfaces may be provided for light within a specified wavelength rang. Because Wall teaches coating one or both of the major surfaces of a given waveguide, and because the claim does not require the common reflective waveband to be expressly labeled as “common” or to differ from other wavebands, Walls disclosure reasonably teaches front side and back side coatings that reflect rays in the same wavelength range, which is considered the common reflective waveband.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Wall et al. (US 2017/0235142, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Wall discloses a method, comprising: emitting rays from an image source ([0035] discloses: 204, display engine); coupling the rays from the image source into a guide ([0035] discloses: 100B, waveguide) comprising a guide front side (right hand side of 100B, waveguide in Figure 2) with a front side coating (in at least abstract discloses: coating on at least one of the major surfaces of at least one of the waveguides; Examiner notes that this includes all the major surfaces of all the waveguides with a respective coating) and a guide back side (left hand side of 100B, waveguide in Figure 2) with a back side coating (in at least abstract discloses: coating on at least one of the major surfaces of at least one of the waveguides; Examiner notes that this includes all the major surfaces of all the waveguides with a respective coating); reflecting a first portion of the rays (Figure 2 depicts: a portion of rays reflected) based on refractive index interfaces of the guide front side and the guide back side between the guide front side and the guide back side ([0026] discloses: diffraction grating can depend on refractive index; [0052] discloses: critical angle of index of refraction, to reflect light; Examiner notes that this includes the refractive indexes of the respective sides, see Figure 2 for deflection of back side and front side rays); reflecting a second portion of the rays between the front side coating and the back side coating based on a common reflective waveband of the front side coating and the back side coating ([0013] discloses: red wavelength range; Examiner notes that the waveguide is considered to selectively reflect the specified wavelength range utilizing the critical angle, TIR and refractive indices); and out-coupling the first portion and the second portion of the rays from the guide front side ([0035] discloses: 116B, out coupler, to couple light out of 100B, waveguide; Figure 2 depicts: out-coupled rays leaving waveguide on the guide front side, right hand side of 100B, waveguide).
Regarding claim 23, Wall discloses the method of claim 21, wherein: the reflecting the first portion of the rays comprises reflecting rays within a first range of angles; and the reflecting the second portion of the rays comprises reflecting rays within a second range of angles that overlaps the first range of angles ([0038] discloses: each input-coupler, have the same input and output angular range; HOE’s reflect light based on wavelength and angle of incidence; each HOE has its own acceptance/reflection angular range; Examiner notes that reflective coating, on their particular surface, have angular reflectance bands, which overlap in the TIR range, therefore Wall is considered to have overlapping angle ranges).
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, 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, 5-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 2022/0357499, of record) in view of Danziger et al. (US 2024/0231099) hereinafter Danziger099.
Regarding claim 1, Danziger discloses a device (Figure 1), comprising:
a guide ([0107] discloses: 10, LOE, light-guide optical element) comprising a guide front side ([0109] discloses: 14, parallel face), a guide back side ([0109] discloses: 12, parallel face) opposite the guide front side, and guide sidewalls adjoining a perimeter of the guide front side and a perimeter of the guide back side (Figure 1 depicts: 12, 14, parallel faces, opposite each other and guide side walls adjoining the front side to the back side);
a back side coating ([0013] discloses: second coating; [0119] discloses: 18a, 18b, 18c, internal surface, include a second coating and are considered the back side coating) that coats the guide back side and that is configured to reflect rays in a first waveband ([0013] discloses: second coating, configured to reflect light corresponding to a second color); and
a front side coating ([0113] discloses: first coating; [0119] discloses: 16a, 16b, 16c, internal surface, include a first coating and are considered the front side coating) that coats the guide front side and that is configured to reflect rays in a second waveband ([0013] discloses: first coating, configured to reflect light corresponding to a first color); and
wherein the front side coating and the back side coating confine light propagating within the guide (in at least abstract disclose: internal surfaces cooperate to reflect all components of light from the first and second subsets).
Danziger fails to disclose a device with a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side and a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side. Danziger and Danziger are related because both disclose optical waveguides.
Danziger099 teaches a device with a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side and a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side (Figure 3B depicts: a coated LOE, coating the outer surface of all sides of the LOE guide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Danziger099 and provide a device with a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side and a coating that coats the outer surface of the guide back side. Doing so would allow for stray light suppression and improved control of light propagation within the waveguide.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein: the guide back side and the guide front side each provide a refractive index interfaces that internally reflect a first portion of the rays within a first range of angles ([0109] discloses: angles greater than critical, that cause reflections at the parallel faces; Examiner notes that angles greater than critical are considered the first range of angles); and the back side coating and the front side coating cooperate (in at least abstract disclose: internal surfaces cooperate to reflect all components of light; Examiner notes that both range of angles are part of all components of light and considered reflected by cooperation of all both internal surfaces) to provide internal reflection for a second portion of the rays within a second range of angles ([0109] discloses: angles greater than critical, that cause reflections at the parallel faces; Examiner notes that angles less than critical are considered the second range of angles).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the first range of angles and the second range of angles are non-overlapping ([0109] discloses: angularly selective reflective coatings on 12, 14 parallel faces; Examiner notes that critical angles and non-critical angles are considered non-overlapping as angles at or over critical undergo TIR at surfaces 12/14 and angles below critical would leak out through 12/14 but instead strike facets 16/18 and get reflected back into the guide or selectively reflect out toward the viewer; no angles of Danziger considered to do both).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the second range of angles are at least partially outside of the first range of angles (Examiner notes that at least part of the group of critical angles are outside the range of the group of non-critical angles).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the front side coating and the back side coating each comprises one or more dielectric layers ([0011] discloses: first and second coatings includes a dielectric coating; Examiner notes that at least one of is considered to include both coatings including a metallic coating).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the front side coating and the back side coating each comprises one or more metallic layers ([0112] discloses: at least one of the first and second coatings includes a metallic coating; Examiner notes that at least one of is considered to include both coatings including a metallic coating).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein:
the front side coating permits passage of light of a third waveband through the front side coating; and
the back side coating permits passage of light of a fourth waveband through the back side coating ([0109] discloses: coatings are angularly selective; therefore specific angles are reflected and certain angles are passed through; Examiner notes that the angles that pass through the front side are considered the third waveband and the angles that pass through the backside are considered the fourth waveband, as the same selective coatings are used on both sides of the optical device; using BRI, wavebands can be defined by wavelength or angles).
Claims 2, 4, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 2022/0357499, of record) in view of Danziger et al. (US 2024/0231099) hereinafter Danziger099, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wall et al. (US 2017/0235142, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, comprising: an input coupler ([0109] discloses: 22, optical coupling-in configuration) configured to receive the rays emitted by the image source and couple the rays into the guide ([0109] discloses: 20, beam of illumination, coupled into 10, LOE, by 22, coupling in configuration); and an output coupler ([0107] discloses: 16a, 16b, 16c, and 18a, 18b, 18c, partially reflective surfaces) configured to receive rays propagated along the guide between the guide back side and the guide front side and emit the received rays from the guide front side ([0110] discloses: 16a-c, 18a-c, internal surfaces, reflect 24a, 24b, image light rays, out of 10, LOE).
Danziger fails to disclose a device comprising an image source configured to emit rays toward the guide. Danziger and Wall are related because both disclose optical devices.
Wall teaches a device comprising an image source configured to emit rays toward the guide ([0035] teaches: 210, light source; Figure 2 depicts: 210, light source, emitting rays toward the guide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Wall and provide a device comprising an image source configured to emit rays toward the guide. Doing so would allow for projection image illumination into the guide in a controlled and repeatable manner, thereby improving the reliability and predictability of the optical system.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 3.
Danziger fails to disclose a device wherein the first range of angles and the second range of angles overlap. Danziger and Wall are related because both disclose optical devices.
Wall teaches a device wherein the first range of angles and the second range of angles overlap (Examiner notes that reflective coating, on their particular surface, have angular reflectance bands, which overlap in the TIR range, therefore Wall is considered to have overlapping angle ranges; Examiner notes that the terms front and back side under BRI can be considered the walls of the guide, the major surfaces of Wall, or the surfaces of the faucets of Danziger).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Wall and provide a device wherein the first range of angles and the second range of angles overlap. Doing so would allow for controlled angular and spectral reflection on the guides front and back surfaces, thereby improving light efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 2, comprising:
a second guide (Figure 13 depicts: 70, waveguide and 80, waveguide, therefore considered the first and second guide) comprising a second guide front side and a second guide back side opposite the second guide front side (Figure 13 depicts: 82a, 82b, faces; therefore considered the guide back and front side respectively).
Danziger fails to disclose a device comprising a second back side coating that coats an outer surface of the second guide back side and that is configured to reflect rays in a third waveband; a second front side coating that coat an outer surface of the second guide front side and that is configured to reflect rays in a fourth waveband; a second image source configured to emit rays toward the second guide; a second input coupler configured to receive the rays emitted by the second image source and couple the rays into the second guide; and a second output coupler configured to receive rays propagated along the second guide between the second guide back side and the second guide front side and emit the received rays from the second guide front side. Danziger and Wall are related because both disclose optical systems.
Wall teaches a device comprising a second back side coating that coats an outer surface of the second guide back side ([0018] teaches: waveguide has front-side an back-side surfaces; [0065] teaches: coating applied to one or both of the surfaces; including the front and back side surface of 108, surface and 110, surface; both surfaces including the front and back side surfaces) and that is configured to reflect rays in a third waveband (in at least abstract teaches: coating has a low reflectance for light with a specific wavelength range; Examiner notes that this wavelength range is considered the third wavelength range; the claims do not specify that the third and fourth wavebands are different than the first and second wavebands);
a second front side coating that coats an outer surface of the second guide front side and ([0018] teaches: waveguide has front-side an back-side surfaces; [0065] teaches: coating applied to one or both of the surfaces; including the front and back side surface of 108, surface and 110, surface; both surfaces including the front and back side surfaces) that is configured to reflect rays in a fourth waveband (in at least abstract teaches: coating has a high reflectance for light with a specific wavelength range; Examiner notes that this range is considered to be the fourth waveband);
a second image source configured to emit rays toward the second guide (Figure 2 depicts: 222R, 222B, 222G, lights; Examiner notes that the separate 222R, 222B and 222G, are considered to be separate image sources, each sent to their respective waveguides; [0046] teaches: 210, light source assembly can include red, green and blue light sources);
a second input coupler ([0035] teaches: 112G, input-coupler; therefore considered to be the second input coupler) configured to receive the rays emitted by the second image source and couple the rays into the second guide (Figure 2 depicts: 112G, input coupler, configured to receive 222G, light, from the second image source); and
a second output coupler ([0035] teaches: 116G, output-coupler) configured to receive rays propagated along the second guide between the second guide back side and the second guide front side and emit the received rays from the second guide front side (Figure 2 depicts: 116G, output-coupler, configured to receive rays propagated along the second guide, 100G, and it front side, side with input-coupler and its back side, side with output-coupler).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Wall and provide a device comprising a second back side coating that coats an outer surface of the second guide back side and that is configured to reflect rays in a third waveband; a second front side coating that coat an outer surface of the second guide front side and that is configured to reflect rays in a fourth waveband; a second image source configured to emit rays toward the second guide; a second input coupler configured to receive the rays emitted by the second image source and couple the rays into the second guide; and a second output coupler configured to receive rays propagated along the second guide between the second guide back side and the second guide front side and emit the received rays from the second guide front side. Doing so would allow for controlled management of different spectral portions of the illumination guide, thereby improving optical efficiency, reducing leakage, and providing predictable color-selective behavior.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 13, wherein: the second guide back side (Wall: see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 2 of Wall) is positioned over the guide front side (Wall: see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that if you rotate the Figure 90 degrees to the left, the guide back side would be positioned over the second guide back side); the second input coupler (Wall: see annotated Figure A below) is positioned between the second guide back side and the guide front side (Wall: see annotated Figure A below; the second input coupler is positioned between the second guide back side and the guide front side); and the output coupler (Wall: see annotated Figure A below) is positioned between the second guide back side and the guide front side (Wall: Examiner notes that the output coupler is positioned between the second guide back side and the guide front side; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 16, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 15, comprising an air gap between the second guide back side and the guide front side (Wall: see annotate Figure A above; Examiner notes that the air gap is between the second guide back side and the guide front side; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 13, comprising
a third guide (Wall: Figure 2 depicts: 100R, a third guide) comprising a third guide front side (Wall: Figure 2: right hand side of 100R, considered the guide front side) and a third guide back side (Wall: Figure 2: left hand side of 100R, considered the guide back side) opposite the third guide front side (Wall: Figure 2 depicts: guide back side, opposite the guide front side);
a third back side coating that coats an outer surface of the third guide back side and that is configured to reflect rays in a fifth waveband ([0018] teaches: waveguide has front-side and back-side surfaces; [0065] teaches: coating applied to one or both of the surfaces; including the front and back side surface of 108, surface and 110, surface; both surfaces including the front and back side surfaces; [0084] teaches: other different red, green, and blue wavelength ranges);
a third front side coating that coats an outer surface of the third guide front side and that is configured to reflect rays in a sixth waveband ([0018] teaches: waveguide has front-side and back-side surfaces; [0065] teaches: coating applied to one or both of the surfaces; including the front and back side surface of 108, surface and 110, surface; both surfaces including the front and back side surfaces; [0084] teaches: other different red, green, and blue wavelength ranges; Examiner notes that additionally, the wavelength ranges can be the same as the 1st -3rd, as the claims do not require them to be different);
a third image source configured to emit rays toward the second guide (Wall: Figure 2 depicts: 222R, 222B, 222G, lights; Examiner notes that the separate 222R, 222B and 222G, are considered to be separate image sources, each sent to their respective waveguides; 222R and 222G both send rays toward the second guide);
a third input coupler (Wall: [0035] teaches: 112R, input-coupler, therefore considered to be the third coupler) configured to receive the rays emitted by the second image source and couple the rays into the third guide (Wall: Figure 2 depicts: 112R, input-coupler, receiving rays from 222R, considered the second image source and coupling into the 112R, input coupler); and
a third output coupler (Wall: [0035] teaches: 116R, output-coupler) configured to receive rays propagated along the third guide between the third guide back side and the third guide front side and emit the received rays from the third guide front side (Figure 3 depicts: received rays emitted from the third guide; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies to this claim, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
PNG
media_image2.png
649
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Regarding claim 18, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 17, wherein: the first waveband and the second waveband correspond to a red waveband; the third waveband and the fourth waveband correspond to a green waveband; and the fifth waveband and the sixth waveband correspond to a blue waveband (Wall: Annotated Figure B above depicts: two wavebands each attributed to colors Red, green and blue).
The modified Danziger fails to disclose the specific wavebands attributed to the specific colors. However, arranging the names of the wavebands assigned to specific color bands is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to assign the wavebands in any particular order according to color since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the color guides in any the specific order described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, or yields an unexpected result. Wall discusses in [0047] that the order in which the waveguides are stacked can be changed. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any order of waveband colors and subsequent numbered wavelengths, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of the first waveband and the second waveband correspond to a red waveband; the third waveband and the fourth waveband correspond to a green waveband; and the fifth waveband and the sixth waveband correspond to a blue waveband represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 17, comprising an imaging device (Wall: [0035] teaches: 204, engine display), wherein the imaging device includes the image source, the second image source, and the third image source (Wall: [0047] teaches: 222R, 222G, 222B, is output by 204, display engine; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 2022/0357499, of record) in view of Danziger et al. (US 2024/0231099) hereinafter Danziger099, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ueda (US 2023/0393324, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Danziger discloses the device of claim 1.
Danziger fails to disclose a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband overlap. Danziger and Ueda are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ueda teaches a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband overlap ([0027] teaches: rays of light that may be identical in wavelength to each other; Examiner notes that identical is considered overlapping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and provide a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband overlap. Doing so would allow for better control of the illumination spectrum and improve spectral color, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 10, Danziger discloses the device of claim 1.
Danziger fails to disclose a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband are substantially identical. Danziger and Ueda are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ueda teaches a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband are substantially identical ([0027] teaches: rays of light that may be identical in wavelength to each other, therefore considered substantially identical).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and provide a device wherein the first waveband and the second waveband are substantially identical. Doing so would allow for better control of the illumination spectrum and improve spectral color, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 2022/0357499, of record) in view of Danziger et al. (US 2024/0231099) hereinafter Danziger099, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Alexander et al. (US 2018/0373046, of record).
Regarding claim 11, Danziger discloses the device of claim 1, wherein: the back side coating ([0119] discloses: 18a, 18b, 18c, internal surface, include a second coating, are considered the back side coating) the front side coating ([0119] discloses: 16a, 16b, 16c, internal surface, include a first coating, are considered the front side coating).
Danziger fails to disclose a device with the back side coating is configured to reflect rays of a first plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the first waveband; and the front side coating is configured to reflect rays of a second plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the second waveband. Danziger and Alexander are related because both disclose optical devices.
Alexander teaches a device with the back side coating is configured to reflect rays of a first plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the first waveband and the front side coating is configured to reflect rays of a second plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the second waveband (Figure 2 depicts: coatings on the back side and front side of the waveguide to reflect rays; [0045] teaches: first and second and third waveband are non-overlapping; [0053] teaches: individual holograms responsive to light in distinct and non-overlapping wavebands).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of Alexander and provide a device with the back side coating is configured to reflect rays of a first plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the first waveband and the front side coating is configured to reflect rays of a second plurality of non-overlapping wavebands that include the second waveband. Doing so would allow for better control of the illumination spectrum and improve spectral color, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 11, wherein each waveband of the first plurality of non-overlapping wavebands is substantially identical to a corresponding waveband of the second plurality of non-overlapping wavebands (Alexander: [0053] teaches; multiple holograms may be responsive to light in the same waveband; Examiner notes that this considered substantially identical wavebands of the first and second plurality of non-overlapping wavebands; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 2022/0357499, of record) in view of Danziger et al. (US 2024/0231099) hereinafter Danziger099 in view of Wall et al. (US 2017/0235142, of record), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of DeSanto et al. (US 2005/0238303, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Danziger discloses the device of claim 13.
Danziger fails to disclose a device comprising a frame, wherein the frame includes: a first arm proximate a first end of the guide; a second arm proximate a first end of the second guide; and a bridge between a second end of the guide and a second end of the second guide. Danziger and DeSanto are related because both disclose optical devices.
DeSanto teaches a device comprising a frame (Figure 1 depicts: optical panel system; therefore considered to be enclosed by a frame), wherein the frame includes: a first arm proximate a first end of the guide ([0052] discloses: 350, opposing edge structure; Examiner notes that the bottom of the edge structure is considered the first arm, and proximate a first end of the guide); a second arm proximate a first end of the second guide (Examiner notes that an identical 350, opposing edge structure is considered to be on the second guide, and the top edge of the structure, on the top of the waveguide, is considered to be the second arm); and a bridge between a second end of the guide and a second end of the second guide (Examiner notes that the waveguides are considered stacked using the edge structures in a stack analogous to Figure 4; therefore the top and bottom end caps of 350, edge structure is considered a bride, as it bridges the multiple waveguides; DeSanto’s edge structure 350, encloses and supports multiple waveguides this forming a frame as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Danziger to incorporate the teachings of DeSanto and provide a device comprising a frame, wherein the frame includes: a first arm proximate a first end of the guide; a second arm proximate a first end of the second guide; and a bridge between a second end of the guide and a second end of the second guide. Doing so would allow for better structural support and compactness, thereby improving the overall efficiency and functionality of the optical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to teach “the reflecting the first portion of the rays comprises reflecting rays within a first range of angles; and the reflecting the second portion of the rays comprises reflecting rays within a second range of angles” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 21, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art fails to teach “the reflecting the first portion of the rays comprises internal reflecting rays within a first range of angles; and the reflecting the second portion of the rays comprises internally reflecting rays within a second range of angles that does not overlap the first range of angles” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 21, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art fails to teach “reflecting a first portion of the second rays between the second guide front side and the second guide back side based on refractive index interfaces of the second guide front side and the second guide back side; reflecting a second portion of the second rays between the second front side coating and the second back side coating based on a common reflective waveband of the second front side coating and the second back side coating” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 25 and 21, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872