DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 11 November 2025.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0214487 to Lin et al in view of U.S. Patent 11,435,592 to Blomstedt et al and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0003771 to Liao et al.
In regards to claim 15, Lin recites a reflective waveguide (Figures 1, 3A/B, and 7) comprising a first portion (Figure 7; 121_1) comprising a first material having a first refractive index; and a second portion (Figure 7; 121_2) comprising a second material, and an input coupler (124) composed of facets at a first region of the reflective waveguide. Lin further recites multiple faceted coupling structures (204 & 205; gratings) in Figure 5A but fails to expressly recite the additional coupler (204 or 205) to be an output coupler composed of facets at a second region of the reflective waveguide. However, Blomstedt also teaches a reflective waveguide having multiple waveguides layers having an input coupler and output coupler, the input and output couplers to be gratings. (Figure 1A). Since Lin and Blomstedt are both from the same field of endeavor and further since Blomstedt teaches a reflective waveguide to include an output coupler for the purpose of providing a polychromatic image to be seen by the user, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an output coupler composed of facets at a second region of the reflective waveguide. Furthermore, Lin in view of Blomstedt fails to expressly recite a second refractive index that approximately matches the first refractive index. However, Lin does recite the waveguide layer to be made from PMMA and polycarbonate [0036]. Lin further recites at least two waveguide layers (Figure 7) to be formed. Although Lin does not expressly recite the refractive index values of the PMMA and polycarbonate materials, Liao recites multiple waveguide layers (112 & 114) having formed from PMMA and polycarbonate [0040] having approximately matching refractive indices. Since Lin is silent regarding the refractive indices and Liao teaches the refractive indices of the same materials in waveguide layers to be approximately matching, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a second refractive index that approximately matches the first refractive index. Lately, Lin in view of Blomstedt and Liao fail to expressly recite the second portion fused to the first portion without an adhesive layer. However, the limitation is a method limitation in a device claim. Applicant is claiming a product, not a method of manufacturing the product. The patent being sought in the preceding claims is an end product that is met by the previously applied references.
In regards to claim 16, Lin in view of Liao recites the first refractive index and the second refractive index differ by less than approximately 10-3. (Liao; [0040])
In regards to claim 18, although Lin in view of Liao does not expressly recite the first material has a first glass transition temperature (Tg) and the second material has a second Tg that is lower than the first Tg by at least 30 degrees Celsius, Liao does recite the first layer to be a PMMA material and the second layer to be a polycarbonate material. Furthermore, Applicant recites in the Specification, the PMMA material to be an example of the first layer. Additionally, Applicant recites Bio-Based Durabio to be an example of the second layer. Durabio is an example of a polycarbonate. The specification further discloses the known glass transition temperatures of these materials in Table 2. The table clearly shows the first material has a first glass transition temperature (Tg) and the second material has a second Tg that is lower than the first Tg by at least 30 degrees Celsius. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the first material has a first glass transition temperature (Tg) and the second material has a second Tg that is lower than the first Tg by at least 30 degrees Celsius.
In regards to claim 17 and 19, although Lin in view of Blomstedt and Liao do not expressly recite the second material is overmolded (claim 17) and overcast (claim 19) to the first portion, the limitation is a method limitation in a device claim. Applicant is claiming a product, not a method of manufacturing the product. The patent being sought in the preceding claims is an end product that is met by the previously applied references.
In regards to claim 20, although Lin in view of Liao does not expressly recite the first material has a first solubility parameter and the second material has a second solubility parameter that approximately matches the first solubility parameter, Liao does recite the same materials as disclosed in the Specification. (See rejection of claim 18 above) Since Liao recites the same materials as disclosed by Applicant, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the first material has a first solubility parameter and the second material has a second solubility parameter that approximately matches the first solubility parameter.
In regards to claim 21, Lin recites an augmented reality display system comprising the reflective waveguide of claim 1 mounted in the frame; and a light engine [0003] configured to project display light toward the input coupler of the reflective waveguide. Although Lin does not expressly recite the display system to be an eyewear system having a frame, the is well known in the art of augmented, mixed and virtual reality for display systems to be in the form of eyewear having frames to support the necessary components to project the desired image to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the display system to be an eyewear system having a frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874