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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed January 22, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. (US 2021/0263313 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement), in view of Yamashita et al. (CN 1675495 A), further in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2024/0061165 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Malhotra discloses an optical element (500 in Fig. 5A; 520 in Fig. 5B) comprising: a waveguide body (503; 523) extending from an input end to an output end and configured to guide light by total internal reflection from the input end to the output end; an input coupling structure (505; 525) located proximate to the input end for coupling light into the waveguide body; and an output coupling (506; 526) structure located proximate to the output end for coupling light out of the waveguide body, wherein the waveguide body comprises at least one layer of an optically anisotropic organic solid crystal (paragraphs 0073, 0075).
Still regarding claim 1, Malhotra teaches the claimed invention except for the optically anisotropic waveguide body configured to provide a higher ray density of light propagating through than an optically isotropic waveguide body. Yamashita discloses a light-diffusing element which is an optically anisotropic waveguide body configured to provide a higher ray density of light propagating through than an optically isotropic waveguide body (“light-diffusing element has anisotropic component, which can improve the total light transmittance”, and would naturally correspond to a higher ray density as compared to an “isotropic [waveguide] element as the light diffusing element… thus resulting in decrease of brightness”). Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use an optically anisotropic waveguide body configured to provide a higher ray density of light propagating through than an optically isotropic waveguide body as disclosed by Yamashita in the device of Malhotra for the purpose of increasing the brightness.
Still regarding claim 1, the proposed combination of Malhotra and Yamashita teaches the claimed invention except for a 2D diagonal field-of-view of at least approximately 10 degrees. Nakayama discloses a waveguide body comprising an optically anisotropic organic solid crystal (paragraph 0097) supporting a 2D diagonal field of view (FOV) of at least approximately 10 degrees (Fig. 14A; paragraphs 0085, 0116). Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a 2D diagonal field-of-view of at least approximately 10 degree as disclosed by Nakayama in the device of the proposed combination of Malhotra and Yamashita for the purpose of expanding the visual field.
Regarding claim 2, Malhotra discloses the input coupling structure and the output coupling structure each comprise a plurality of diffractive gratings in Figs. 5A-5B and paragraph 0120.
Regarding claim 3, Malhotra discloses the diffractive gratings are selected from the group consisting of volume Bragg gratings, polarization volume holographic (PVH) gratings and surface relief gratings (SRG) in Figs. 5A-5B and paragraph 0115.
Regarding claim 4, Malhotra discloses the diffractive gratings comprise binary phase gratings or slanted gratings in Figs. 5A-5B.
Regarding claim 5, Malhotra discloses the optical element comprises a planar waveguide in Figs. 5A-5B.
Regarding claim 6, Malhotra discloses the optical element comprises a non-planar waveguide in paragraph 0059.
Regarding claim 7, Malhotra discloses the at least one organic solid crystal layer comprises a molecule selected from the group consisting of anthracene, tetracene, pentacene, saturated or unsaturated polycyclic hydrocarbons, nitrogen-, sulfur-, or oxygen-containing heterocycles, quinolines, benzothiophenes, benzopyrans, bent and asymmetric acenes, 2,6-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid, and 2,6-dimethyl carboxylic esters in paragraph 0064.
Regarding claim 8, Malhotra discloses the at least one organic solid crystal layer comprises a single crystal in paragraph 0049.
Regarding claim 9, Malhotra discloses the waveguide body comprises a refractive index of at least approximately 1.5 and a birefringence of at least approximately 0.01 in paragraph 0074.
Regarding claim 10, Malhotra discloses the waveguide body comprises principal refractive indices (nx, ny, nz), wherein nx≠ny≠nz nx, nx=ny≠nz, nx=nz≠ny, or ny=nz≠nx in paragraph 0074.
Regarding claim 12, Malhotra discloses the waveguide body comprises a single optically anisotropic organic solid crystal layer having a thickness of less than approximately 600 micrometers in paragraph 0058.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Malhotra discloses the waveguide body comprises a stack of optically anisotropic organic solid crystal layers in paragraphs 0058, 0090 and 0098. The proposed combination of Malhotra, Yamashita and Nakayama teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the number of layers in the stack and the thickness of the stack. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed number of layers and thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Yamashita in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the optically anisotropic waveguide configured to improve brightness and uniformity of a projected image (“light-diffusing element has anisotropic component, which can improve the total light transmittance of the light diffusion element… brightness can be improved”).id crystal moleculesand specifically stating the exposure voltage greater than a
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 19, 2026