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 to Claims 1,6,7,10,16,19, in the submission filed 12/17/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of Claim 2 is acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1,3-20. Claim 10 was objected to previously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 12/17/2025) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
a) Lee’s description does not explain how suppressing undesirable diffraction orders is achieved, much less through a configuration of the lens body and optical structure that satisfies a requirement that "a minimal expected diffraction angle at which the lens body diffracts the visible light is Ɵ, and a maximum allowed exit angle at which the optical structure allows the visible light to exit is α, wherein α<Ɵ." Lee is silent of any "minimal expected diffraction angle at which the lens body diffracts the visible light" and "maximum allowed exit angle at which the optical structure allows the visible light to exit," not to mention to compare it.
Lee teaches (para 48) that the rainbow effect is reduced through suppressing undesirable diffraction orders of a visible light, such as diffraction orders higher than a predetermined diffraction order, e.g., higher than the first diffraction order (+1st diffraction order and/or −1.sup.st diffraction order)”. Lee teaches (para 100) that secondary PVH layers 360a, 360b may be configured to suppress undesirable diffraction orders caused by primary PVH layers 355a, 355b”. Lee teaches that the second PVH layers 360a, 360b have different pitches (para 101) or can have different thickness (para 97) which leads to suppression of diffraction orders.
Each of the wavelengths in the visible light has different diffraction angles at different orders. The minimum angle for one of the wavelengths is taken to be the minimum angle Ɵ and as Lee teaches that the higher orders are suppressed by secondary PVH layers, the exit angle is less than the minimum angle).
In view of the above arguments, rejection of claims is upheld.
Claims 1,3-9,11-20 are rejected as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 16-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “a minimum angle at which the lens body diffracts the is A1” in line 11. There seems to be a typo error and part of the previous claim was deleted inadvertently. It is suggested to be replaced with --a minimum angle at which the lens body diffracts the first color light ray is A1—
Claims 17,18 are dependent on claim 16 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,16, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a minimal expected diffraction angle at which the lens body diffracts visible light”. It is not clear whether a minimal expected diffraction angle is the same as the diffraction angle of the lens body for a particular wavelength in the visible light or if it is different. From the specification, it appears that the minimum angle at which diffraction occurs among the angles formed between the light and the normal line is the minimum diffraction angle. Hence, for the purposes of examination, minimal expected diffraction angle is taken to be the minimum angle at which diffraction occurs among the angles formed between the emitted light and the normal line.
Claims 3-9, 11-15,19,20 are dependent on claim 1 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 16 recites “a minimal expected diffraction angle at which the lens body diffracts a first color light ray”. It is not clear whether a minimal expected diffraction angle is the same as the diffraction angle of the lens body for a particular wavelength in the visible light or if it is different. From the specification, it appears that the minimum angle at which diffraction occurs among the angles formed between the light and the normal line is the minimum diffraction angle. Hence, for the purposes of examination, minimal expected diffraction angle is taken to be the minimum angle at which diffraction occurs among the angles formed between the emitted light and the normal line.
Claims 17,18 are dependent on claim 16 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1,15-17,19,20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2022/0137278 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches (fig 3C) a field lens ( optical device 350, para 95, “The device may be implemented in NEDs, serving as or included in a light guide display, an eye-tracking combiner, etc., to reduce the rainbow effect in the see-through views and improve the image quality of the see-through views”, para 48, substrate is a solid optical lens or part of a solid optical lens, para 110, this indicates the device is considered as a lens, a field lens), comprising
a lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) and an optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) (“all the primary PVH layers may be stacked together, all the secondary PVH layers may be stacked together, and the stack of the primary PVH layers may be stacked with the stack of the secondary PVH layers”, para 96), wherein:
the lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) includes at least two layers of gratings (primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96, PVH are polarization selective gratings);
along a direction perpendicular to a plane where the lens body is located, the lens body includes a first side (one surface side of stack of primary PVH layers 355a, 355b) and a second side (second surface side of the stack of primary PVH layers 355a, 355b);
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) is located on a side of at least one grating layer (one of primary PVH layers 355a,355b) close to the second side (light exit side from secondary PVH 360b in fig 3c);
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) is used to block at least part of visible light from being incident on one side of the lens body and/or to block at least part of the visible light from being emitted toward the second side of the lens body after being reflected by the gratings (“one or more secondary PVH layers may be paired with the respective primary PVH layer to suppress undesirable diffraction orders caused by the respective primary PVH layer, such that the rainbow effect caused by the respective primary PVH layer may be reduced”, para 95);and
a minimal expected diffracted angle at which the lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) diffracts the visible light is Ɵ, and a maximum allowed exit angle at which the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) allows the visible light to exit is α, wherein α<Ɵ (“a device configured to reduce the rainbow effect through suppressing undesirable diffraction orders of a visible light (e.g., a visible polychromatic light from a real world environment), such as diffraction orders higher than a predetermined diffraction order, e.g., higher than the first diffraction order (+1st diffraction order and/or −1.sup.st diffraction order)”, para 48, “secondary PVH layers 360a, 360b may be configured to suppress undesirable diffraction orders caused by primary PVH layers 355a, 355b”, para 100) (Each of the wavelengths in the visible light has different diffraction angles at different orders. The minimum angle for one of the wavelengths is taken to be the minimum angle Ɵ and as Lee teaches that the higher orders are suppressed by secondary PVH layers, the exit angle is less than the minimum angle).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches field lens according to claim 1,
wherein: the first side (one surface side of stack of primary PVH layers 355a, 355b) is a functional light incident side (incident light 302 on 355a, fig 3c), and the second side (light exit side from secondary PVH 360b in fig 3c) is a functional light output side.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches (fig 3C) a field lens ( optical device 350, para 95, “The device may be implemented in NEDs, serving as or included in a light guide display, an eye-tracking combiner, etc., to reduce the rainbow effect in the see-through views and improve the image quality of the see-through views”, para 48, substrate is a solid optical lens or part of a solid optical lens, para 110, this indicates the device is considered as a lens, a field lens), comprising
a lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) and an optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) (“all the primary PVH layers may be stacked together, all the secondary PVH layers may be stacked together, and the stack of the primary PVH layers may be stacked with the stack of the secondary PVH layers”, para 96), wherein:
the lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) includes at least two layers of gratings (primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96, PVH are polarization selective gratings);
along a direction perpendicular to a plane where the lens body is located, the lens body includes a first side (one surface side of stack of primary PVH layers 355a, 355b) and a second side (second surface side of the stack of primary PVH layers 355a, 355b);
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) is located on a side of at least one grating layer (one of primary PVH layers 355a,355b) close to the second side (light exit side from secondary PVH 360b in fig 3c);
a minimal expected diffraction angle at which the lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) diffracts a first color light ray (one of the colors in visible light such as R) is Ɵ1, and a maximum allowed exit angle at which the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) allows the first color light ray (one of the colors in visible light such as R) to exit is α1, wherein α1<Ɵ1 and a minimum angle at which the lens body diffracts the first color light ray (one of the colors in visible light such as R) is A1, wherein α1<A1 (“a device configured to reduce the rainbow effect through suppressing undesirable diffraction orders of a visible light (e.g., a visible polychromatic light from a real world environment), such as diffraction orders higher than a predetermined diffraction order, e.g., higher than the first diffraction order (+1st diffraction order and/or −1.sup.st diffraction order)”, para 48 “secondary PVH layers 360a, 360b may be configured to suppress undesirable diffraction orders caused by primary PVH layers 355a, 355b”, para 100) (Each of the wavelengths in the visible light has different diffraction angles at different orders. The minimum angle for one of the wavelengths is taken to be the minimum angle Ɵ1 and as Lee teaches that the higher orders are suppressed by secondary PVH layers, the exit angle is less than the minimum angle and hence α1<Ɵ1 and α1<A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches (fig 3C) the field lens according to claim 16, wherein:
an angle at which the lens body (lens body is considered to be the primary PVH layers 355a, 355b, para 96) diffracts a second color light ray (another one of the colors in visible light such as B) is Ɵ2, and an angle at which the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96) allows the second color light ray (another one of the colors in visible light such as B) to exit is α2, wherein α2<Ɵ2 and a minimum angle at which the lens body diffracts the second color light ray (another one of the colors in visible light such as B) is A2, wherein α2<A2 (“a device configured to reduce the rainbow effect through suppressing undesirable diffraction orders of a visible light (e.g., a visible polychromatic light from a real world environment), such as diffraction orders higher than a predetermined diffraction order, e.g., higher than the first diffraction order (+1st diffraction order and/or −1.sup.st diffraction order)”, para 48 and hence α2<Ɵ2 and α2<A2).
and/or an angle at which the lens body diffracts a third color light ray is Ɵ3 and an angle at which the optical structure allows the third color light ray to exit is α 3, wherein α3< Ɵ3; and a minimum angle at which the lens body diffracts the third color light ray is A3, wherein α 3<A3.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches (fig 3c) a display device (display device, para 130), comprising the field lens (optical device 350, para 95, “The device may be implemented in NEDs, serving as or included in a light guide display, an eye-tracking combiner, etc., to reduce the rainbow effect in the see-through views and improve the image quality of the see-through views”, para 48, substrate is a solid optical lens or part of a solid optical lens, para 110, this indicates the device is considered as a lens, a field lens), according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches (fig 3c) the display device according to claim 19,
further comprising a spatial light modulator and a backlight source (“the light source 620 may be a display panel that is illuminated by an external source, such as an LCD panel, an LCoS display panel, or a DLP display panel”, para 130, fig 6), wherein: the spatial light modulator (LCD panel) is located between the field lens (optical device 350, para 95, fig 3c) and the backlight source (external source, para 130).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5,18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0137278 A1, of record) in view of Calafiore et al (US 2020/0409151 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the field lens according to claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: the optical structure includes a light confinement layer; the light confinement layer includes a plurality of light-shielding components and a plurality of light-transmitting components alternately arranged along a first direction; and the first direction is perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side.
Lee and Calafiore are related as optical structures.
Calafiore teaches (fig 6)
wherein:
the optical structure (slanted grating 620, grating coupler, para 84) includes a light confinement layer;
the light confinement layer includes a plurality of light-shielding components (ridges 622, para 84) and a plurality of light-transmitting components (grooves 624, para 84) alternately arranged along a first direction (x direction as in fig 6); and
the first direction (x direction) is perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side (y direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the optical structure of Lee with the light confinement layer of Calafiore for the purpose of increasing the brightness or contrast ratio of displayed images, increase power efficiency, and reduce rainbow artifacts (para39).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee-Calafiore teaches the field lens according to claim 3.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein:
spacing d between two adjacent light-shielding components is d;
a height h of the plurality of light-shielding components along the direction from the first side to the second side is h;
an angle at which the optical structure allows the visible light to emit is a; and a=(1/2)*arctan(h/d).
Lee and Calafiore are related as optical structures.
Calafiore teaches (fig 6)
wherein:
spacing d (p-w, where p is the period p and w is the width of the ridges, para 84) between two adjacent light-shielding components (ridges 622, para 84) is d;
a height h of the plurality of light-shielding components along the direction from the first side to the second side is h (d is the height of the ridges, fig 6);
an angle at which the optical structure (slanted grating 620, grating coupler, para 84) allows the visible light to emit is α; and
α=(1/2)*arctan(h/d) (from triangular geometry, fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical structure of Lee to include α=(1/2)*arctan(h/d) of Calafiore for the purpose of increasing the brightness or contrast ratio of displayed images, increase power efficiency, and reduce rainbow artifacts (para39).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the field lens according to claim 3.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: a plane where at least one of the plurality of light-shielding components is located is perpendicular to a plane where at least one of the gratings is located. Lee and Calafiore are related as optical structures.
Calafiore teaches (fig 6)
wherein:
a plane where at least one of the plurality of light-shielding components (ridges 622, para 84) is located is perpendicular to a plane where waveguide (610) is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical structure of Lee to include the light confinement layer of Calafiore such that a plane where at least one of the plurality of light-shielding components (ridges 622 of Calafiore) is located is perpendicular to a plane where at least one of the gratings (primary PVH 355a,b of Lee) is located (when combining Calafiore’s invention of fig 6 with Lee’s invention of fig 3C, Calafiore’s grating 620 substitutes the secondary PVH 360a or 360b and hence plane of the ridges 622 is perpendicular to plane where gratings PVH 355 are located) is for the purpose of increasing the brightness or contrast ratio of displayed images, increase power efficiency, and reduce rainbow artifacts (para39).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the field lens according to claim 17.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: the optical structure includes a light confinement layer; the light confinement layer includes a plurality of light-shielding components and a plurality of light-transmitting components alternately arranged along a first direction; and the first direction is perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side.
Lee and Calafiore are related as optical structures.
Calafiore teaches (fig 6)
wherein:
the optical structure (slanted grating 620, grating coupler, para 84) includes a light confinement layer;
the light confinement layer includes a plurality of light-shielding components (ridges 622, para 84) and a plurality of light-transmitting components (grooves 624, para 84) alternately arranged along a first direction (x direction as in fig 6); and
the first direction (x direction) is perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side (y direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the optical structure of Lee with the light confinement layer of Calafiore for the purpose of increasing the brightness or contrast ratio of displayed images, increase power efficiency, and reduce rainbow artifacts (para39).
Claim(s) 6-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0137278 A1, of record) in view of Gollier et al (WO 2023/107309 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches the field lens according to claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: along the direction from the first side to the second side, the lens body includes a pre- deflection grating and a converging grating stacked in layers.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
wherein:
wherein: along the direction from the first side to the second side, the lens body includes a pre- deflection grating (diffraction grating 201, para 46) and a converging grating (diffraction grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee-Gollier teaches the field lens according to claim 6, wherein:
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96, Lee) is located on a side of the one of the grating layers of the lens body (one of primary PVH layers 355a,355b).
However, Lee does not teach
the optical structure is located on a side of the converging grating away from the pre- deflection grating; or: the optical structure is located between the converging grating and the pre-deflection grating.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the gratings continue to function as they were designed and intended. Benefits include having many configurations which can help in outcoupling of light in a waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the optical structure so that the optical structure is located on a side of the converging grating away from the pre- deflection grating; or: the optical structure is located between the converging grating and the pre-deflection grating for the purposes of versatility of design.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0137278 A1, of record) in view of Gollier et al (WO 2023/107309 A1, of record) and further in view of Yaroshchuk et al (US 2022/0091323 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee-Gollier teaches field lens according to claim 6.
However, Lee does not teach wherein:
along the direction from the first side to the second side, the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating includes a plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers,
wherein the plurality of converging sub-gratings include a first converging sub-grating, a second converging sub-grating, and a third converging sub-grating, and the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings includes a first pre- deflection sub-grating, a second pre-deflection sub-grating, and a third pre-deflection sub-grating; or
along the direction from the first side to the second side, the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers, wherein the plurality of converging sub- gratings include a first converging sub-grating, a second converging sub-grating, and a third converging sub-grating; along the direction from the first side to the second side of the lens body, the light that is able to pass through the lens body and the optical structure includes a first color light ray, a second color light ray, and a third color light ray; the first converging sub-grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the first color light ray; the second converging sub- grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the second color light ray; and the third converging sub-grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the third color light ray.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
along the direction from the first side to the second side, the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings (grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating (grating 201, para 46) includes a plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging), (“More than two switchable diffraction gratings 201 and 202 may be provided in the out-coupling grating structure 208, and may be disposed in a stack configuration”, para 46); or
along the direction from the first side to the second side, the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers, wherein the plurality of converging sub- gratings include a first converging sub-grating, a second converging sub-grating, and a third converging sub-grating; along the direction from the first side to the second side of the lens body, the light that is able to pass through the lens body and the optical structure includes a first color light ray, a second color light ray, and a third color light ray; the first converging sub-grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the first color light ray; the second converging sub- grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the second color light ray; and the third converging sub-grating and the pre-deflection grating are used to deflect the third color light ray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
wherein the plurality of converging sub-gratings include a first converging sub-grating, a second converging sub-grating, and a third converging sub-grating, and the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings includes a first pre- deflection sub-grating, a second pre-deflection sub-grating, and a third pre-deflection sub-grating
Lee-Gollier and Yaroshchuk are related as plurality of sub-gratings.
Yaroshchuk teaches (fig 16A),
wherein the plurality of sub-gratings include a first sub-grating, a second sub-grating, and a third sub-grating (gratings 1614, 1624, or 1634, para 203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of converging and pre-deflection gratings of Lee-Gollier to include the first to third sub-gratings of Yaroshchuk for the purpose of generating multi-color images (para 203).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee-Gollier-Yaroshchuk teaches the field lens according to claim 8,
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96, Lee) is located on a side of the one of the grating layers of the lens body (one of primary PVH layers 355a,355b).
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: when the converging grating includes the plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating includes the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers,
the optical structure is located between two adjacent pre-deflection sub-gratings of the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
wherein: when the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings (grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating (grating 201, para 46) includes a plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging), (“More than two switchable diffraction gratings 201 and 202 may be provided in the out-coupling grating structure 208, and may be disposed in a stack configuration”, para 46);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
the optical structure is located between two adjacent pre-deflection sub-gratings of the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical structure continue to confine light as designed and intended. Benefits include having many configurations which can help in outcoupling of light in a waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the optical structure so that the optical structure is located between two adjacent pre-deflection sub-gratings of the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings for the purposes of versatility of design.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee-Gollier-Yaroshchuk teaches field lens according to claim 8.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein: when the converging grating includes the plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating includes the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers,
the first converging sub-grating is located on a side of the first pre-deflection sub- grating away from the first side, the second converging sub-grating is located on a side of the second pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side, and the third converging sub-grating is located on a side of the third pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
wherein: when the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings (grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating (grating 201, para 46) includes a plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging), (“More than two switchable diffraction gratings 201 and 202 may be provided in the out-coupling grating structure 208, and may be disposed in a stack configuration”, para 46);
the first converging sub-grating (grating 202, para 46) is located on a side of the first pre-deflection sub- grating (grating 201, para 46) away from the first side (as in fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the placement of pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
the second converging sub-grating is located on a side of the second pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side, and the third converging sub-grating is located on a side of the third pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the gratings continue to function as they were designed and intended. Benefits include having many configurations which can help in outcoupling of light in a waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the second and third converging and pre-deflection gratings so that the second converging sub-grating is located on a side of the second pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side, and the third converging sub-grating is located on a side of the third pre-deflection sub-grating away from the first side for the purposes of versatility of design in forming multi-color images.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee-Gollier-Yaroshchuk teaches field lens according to claim 8.
the optical structure (secondary PVH layers 360a,360b, para 96, Lee) is located on a side of the one of the grating layers of the lens body (one of primary PVH layers 355a,355b).
However, Lee does not teach
wherein:
when the converging grating includes the plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating includes the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers,
the optical structure is located between two adjacent converging sub-gratings of the plurality of converging sub-gratings.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
wherein: when the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings (grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating (grating 201, para 46) includes a plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging), (“More than two switchable diffraction gratings 201 and 202 may be provided in the out-coupling grating structure 208, and may be disposed in a stack configuration”, para 46);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
the optical structure is located between two adjacent converging sub-gratings of the plurality of converging sub-gratings.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical structure continue to confine light as designed and intended. Benefits include having many configurations which can help in outcoupling of light in a waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the optical structure so that the optical structure is located between two adjacent converging sub-gratings of the plurality of converging sub-gratings for the purposes of versatility of design.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee-Gollier-Yaroshchuk teaches field lens according to claim 8.
However, Lee does not teach
wherein:
when the converging grating includes the plurality of converging sub-gratings stacked in layers and the pre-deflection grating includes the plurality of pre-deflection sub-gratings stacked in layers,
the optical structure is located between two adjacent converging sub-gratings of the plurality of converging sub-gratings.
Lee and Gollier are related as lens body.
Gollier teaches (fig 6)
wherein: when the converging grating includes a plurality of converging sub-gratings (grating 202, para 46) stacked in layers (“when the first diffraction grating 201 is in the OFF state while the second diffraction grating 202 is in the ON state, a major portion of the image light 104 propagating along the path 116 is out-coupled as a second portion 215 converging at a second location 222”, when 201 is Off it is pre-deflection grating and 202 is converging), (“More than two switchable diffraction gratings 201 and 202 may be provided in the out-coupling grating structure 208, and may be disposed in a stack configuration”, para 46);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens body of Lee to include the pre-deflection and converging gratings of Gollier for the purpose of providing an image to a user’s eye with minimal image distortions and artifacts (para 4).
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
the pre-deflection grating includes a first pre-deflection sub-grating for deflecting the first color light ray, a second pre-deflection sub-grating for deflecting the second color light ray, and a third pre-deflection sub-grating for deflecting the third color light ray; and along a direction perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side, the first pre-deflection sub-grating, the second pre-deflection sub-grating, and the third pre- deflection sub-grating are disposed in a same layer.
Lee-Gollier and Yaroshchuk are related as plurality of sub-gratings.
Yaroshchuk teaches (fig 16A),
a first sub-grating (grating 1614) for deflecting the first color light ray, a second sub-grating (grating 1624) for deflecting the second color light ray, and a third sub-grating (grating 1634) for deflecting the third color light ray; (“at least one (e.g., each) of the out-coupling gratings 1614, 1624, or 1634 shown in FIG. 16A configured for delivering ⅓ portion of the FOV (X=3) may include 3 sub-gratings (Y=3) to deliver a corresponding portion of FOV in red (R), green (G), and blue (B) colors”, para 203) and
along a direction perpendicular to the direction from the first side to the second side, the first sub-grating, the second sub-grating, and the third sub-grating (gratings 1614, 1624, 1634 ) are disposed in a same layer (“the plurality of out-coupling gratings 1614, 1624, and 1634 may be disposed at the same surface or different surfaces of the waveguide 1601”, para 174, same surface indicates in a same layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of pre-deflection gratings of Lee-Gollier to include the first to third sub-gratings of Yaroshchuk for the purpose of generating multi-color images (para 203).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee-Gollier-Yaroshchuk teaches the field lens according to claim 8.
However, Lee-Gollier does not teach
wherein: a period of the first pre-deflection sub-grating is T1, a period of the second pre- deflection sub-grating is T2, and a period of the third pre-deflection sub-grating is T3, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
34
99
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee-Gollier and Yaroshchuk are related as plurality of sub-gratings.
Yaroshchuk teaches (fig 16A),
wherein: a period of the first sub-grating (grating 1614, para 203) is T1, a period of the second sub-grating (grating 1624) is T2, and a period of the third sub-grating (grating 1634) is T3, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
34
99
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(the gratings 1614,1624,1634 deflect color light rays of RGB and hence this indicates the gratings have different time periods.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of pre-deflection gratings of Lee-Gollier to have different time period of Yaroshchuk for the purpose of generating multi-color images (para 203).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowable.
Claim 10 is allowable over the prior art for at least the reason:
“the first converging sub-grating and the first pre-deflection sub-grating are used to deflect the first color light ray; the second converging sub-grating and the second pre-deflection sub-grating are used to deflect the second color light ray; and the third converging sub-grating and the third pre-deflection sub-grating are used to deflect the third color light ray.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/3/2026