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 .
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 1-2, 4-6, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (US 20200371389) in view of Amitai (US 20130279017).
Regarding claim 1, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) a device comprising: a substrate (402); and an array of beam splitters (404) embedded within the substrate (section 0081); the device is configured to provide a plurality of ray paths (410) from an input (402-3) of the device to an output (402-1) of the device; and at least one ray path (410) within the plurality of ray paths bypasses at least one beam splitter (404-1) and intersects with at least one subsequent beam splitter (404-2) (Fig. 4; light 410 is transmitted through 404-1 and then intersects with 404-2 towards 402-1).
Geng does not necessarily disclose a first length of a first beam splitter of the array of beam splitters is greater than a second length of a second beam splitter of the array of beam splitters.
Amitai discloses (Figs. 2-30; in particular Figs. 22, 30) a first length of a first beam splitter (22) of the array of beam splitters is greater than a second length of a second beam splitter (16) of the array of beam splitters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Amitai to materialize an HUD system that is compact and lightweight.
Regarding claim 2, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is configured to transmit a first proportion of rays and to reflect a second proportion of rays toward an output of the device (section 0084).
Regarding claim 4, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is progressively more reflective in a direction of an output of the device (section 0087).
Regarding claim 5, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) an average amount of light reflected out of the device by each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is substantially uniform (section 0087).
Regarding claim 6, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) the average amount of light reflected out of the device by each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is substantially uniform based on at least: a proportion of ray paths that bypass each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters; and a degree of reflectivity of each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters (section 0086-0088).
Regarding claim 14, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) a system comprising: a head-mounted display (section 0002) comprising a waveguide (402), the waveguide comprising: a substrate (402); and an array of beam splitters (404) embedded within the substrate (section 0081); the waveguide is configured to provide a plurality of ray paths (410) from an input (402-3) of the device to an output (402-1) of the waveguide; and at least one ray path (410) within the plurality of ray paths bypasses at least one beam splitter (404-1) and intersects with at least one subsequent beam splitter (404-2) (Fig. 4; light 410 is transmitted through 404-1 and then intersects with 404-2 towards 402-1).
Geng does not necessarily disclose a first length of a first beam splitter of the array of beam splitters is less than a second length of a second beam splitter of the array of beam splitters.
Amitai discloses (Figs. 2-30; in particular Figs. 2, 22, 25(b)) a first length of a first beam splitter (22) of the array of beam splitters is less than a second length of a second beam splitter (16) of the array of beam splitters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Amitai to avoid an image with gaps or stripes.
Regarding claim 15, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is configured to transmit a first proportion of rays and to reflect a second proportion of rays toward an output of the waveguide (section 0084).
Regarding claim 17, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is progressively more reflective in a direction of an output of the waveguide (section 0087).
Regarding claim 18, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) an average amount of light reflected out of the waveguide by each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is substantially uniform (section 0087).
Regarding claim 19, Geng discloses (Figs. 1-11B) the average amount of light reflected out of the waveguide by each beam splitter (404) within the array of beam splitters is substantially uniform based on: a proportion of ray paths that bypass each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters; and a reflectivity of each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters (section 0086-0088).
Claims 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng and Amitai in view of Sharma et al. (US 11237628).
Regarding claim 7, Geng does not necessarily disclose each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters is progressively longer in a direction of an output of the device.
Sharma discloses (Figs. 1-20) each beam splitter (610, 620, 660, 724, 924, 1010, 1020, 1060) within the array of beam splitters is progressively longer in a direction of an output of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sharma to improve the accuracy of eye tracking and to allow multiple glints to be generated.
Regarding claim 8, Geng does not necessarily disclose a first beam splitter within the array of beam splitters is set at a different angle within the device than a second beam splitter within the array of beam splitters.
Sharma discloses (Figs. 1-20) a first beam splitter (610, 620, 660, 724, 924, 1010, 1020, 1060) within the array of beam splitters is set at a different angle within the device than a second beam splitter (610, 620, 660, 724, 924, 1010, 1020, 1060) within the array of beam splitters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sharma to improve the accuracy of eye tracking and to allow multiple glints to be generated.
Regarding claim 20, Geng does not necessarily disclose each beam splitter within the array of beam splitters is progressively longer in a direction of an output of the waveguide.
Sharma discloses (Figs. 1-20) each beam splitter 610, 620, 660, 724, 924, 1010, 1020, 1060) within the array of beam splitters is progressively longer in a direction of an output of the waveguide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sharma to improve the accuracy of eye tracking and to allow multiple glints to be generated.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai in view of Sharma and Danziger et al. (US 20200110211).
Regarding claim 9, Amitai discloses (Figs. 2-30; in particular Figs. 2, 22-23) a method of manufacture comprising: a substrate (156) such that the substrate defines a series of sloping grooves (oblique portions of 156) (section 0089); applying a partially reflective coating (158) over a slope of each of the sloping grooves; and overcasting the substrate with additional material (156; section 0089) such that the series of sloping grooves are filled in and the partially reflective coating (158) is fully surrounded by substrate.
Amitai does not necessarily disclose removing material from a substrate such that the substrate defines a series of sloping grooves; applying the partially reflective coating comprises applying a gradient of progressively more reflecting coating such that partially reflective coating of each groove in the series of sloping grooves is progressively more reflective.
Sharma discloses (Figs. 1-20; in particular Fig. 17) removing material from a substrate (170) such that the substrate defines a series of sloping grooves (1720). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sharma to obtain a desired size, curvature, and orientation at desired location. Danziger discloses (Figs. 2-21D; Fig. 4) applying the partially reflective coating (22) comprises applying a gradient of progressively more reflecting coating such that partially reflective coating of each groove in the series of sloping grooves is progressively more reflective (sections 0064, 0139, 0149, 0154; The coating characteristics of the first reflecting surfaces should not necessarily be similar to that of the other reflecting surfaces. This coating can be a simple beam-splitter, either metallic, dichroic, or hybrid metallic-dichroic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Danziger to maintain constant reflected intensity along the waveguide.
Regarding claim 10, Amitai discloses (Figs. 2-30; in particular Figs. 2, 22-23) the substrate comprises a polymer material (section 0085).
Regarding claim 12, Amitai does not necessarily disclose after applying the partially reflective coating and before overcasting the substrate, removing the partially reflective coating from one or more portions of a surface of the substrate.
Danziger discloses (Figs. 2-21D) controlling the reflectivity of waveguide (20) by having different reflectivity at different positions of the waveguide (sections 0139, 0149, 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of after applying the partially reflective coating and before overcasting the substrate, removing the partially reflective coating from one or more portions of a surface of the substrate so that constant reflected intensity along the waveguide is maintained.
Regarding claim 13, Amitai does not necessarily disclose removing the material from the substrate such that the substrate defines the series of sloping grooves comprises removing material to different depths at different positions of the substrate such that a maximum depth of at least one sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves differs from a maximum depth of at least one other sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves.
Danziger discloses (Figs. 2-21D) the substrate (20) defines the series of sloping grooves (45) at different depths at different positions of the substrate such that a maximum depth of at least one sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves differs from a maximum depth of at least one other sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves (sections 0139, 0149, 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the material from the substrate such that the substrate defines the series of sloping grooves comprises removing material to different depths at different positions of the substrate such that a maximum depth of at least one sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves differs from a maximum depth of at least one other sloping groove within the series of sloping grooves to control and maintain constant reflected intensity along the waveguide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fig. 4 of Geng is silent regarding “any ray path ‘bypassing’ a beam splitter, leave alone describing a ‘ray path’ that ‘bypasses at least one beam splitter’ and ‘intersects with at least one subsequent beam splitter.’” This is not persuasive. The light (410) avoids (bypasses) the beam splitter (404-1) and transmits light through the transmitting portion (410-1) of the beam splitter (404-1). The ray path then intersects with the subsequent beam splitter (404-2) (Fig. 4). Applicant argues that Danziger is silent applying a gradient of progressively more reflecting coating such that partially reflective coating of each groove in the series of sloping grooves is progressively more reflective. This is not persuasive. As stated above, Danziger discloses (Figs. 2-21D; Fig. 4) applying a gradient of progressively more reflecting coating such that partially reflective coating of each groove in the series of sloping grooves is progressively more reflective (sections 0064, 0139, 0149, 0154; The coating characteristics of the first reflecting surfaces should not necessarily be similar to that of the other reflecting surfaces. This coating can be a simple beam-splitter, either metallic, dichroic, or hybrid metallic-dichroic).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fig. 3 and section 0030 of Robbins et al. (US 20130250431) discloses a device configured to provide a plurality of ray paths from an input (46) of the device to an output (50) of the device; and at least one ray path within the plurality of ray paths bypasses at least one beam splitter (42A) and intersects with at least one subsequent beam splitter (42B). The beamsplitter transmits light to expand the exit pupil of the waveguide.
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 CHARLES S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley can be reached at (571) 272-2286. 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.
/CHARLES S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871