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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “(104)” when all other mappings were removed from the claim language via amendment. Please verify as to whether the mappings are to remain in the claims, or to be removed. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes the mappings will be removed from the claim language.
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.
Claims 8-10 are 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.
Claims 8-10 recites the limitation "the geometrical surface parameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the geometrical surface parameter” will be read as “a geometrical surface parameter”.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al. (US 2018/0284440 A1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 2019/0212699 A1) in view of Tervo et al. (US 2019/0004219).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Popovich discloses a lightguide of an augmented or virtual reality eyewear apparatus (Waveguide display; Figures 1 and 11A-11B), comprising:
an additional grating ([0076] discloses: 106A, fold grating) arranged between an in-coupling grating ([0076] discloses: 105A, input grating) and an out-coupling grating ([0076] discloses: 107A, output grating) wherein the additional grating comprises an array of a plurality of grating areas ([0101] discloses and Figures 11A-11B depict: rolled K-vector grating, containing discrete grating elements; [0007] discloses: fold grating can be a rolled k-vector grating; thus the fold grating is considered an array of a plurality of grating areas) arranged in a successive manner (Figure 11A depicts: 212-215, discrete grating elements, arranged in a successive manner) in a direction of propagation light between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating (Figure 1 depicts: 106A, fold grating, in a direction of propagation light between 105A, input grating and 107A, output grating), a first grating area of the array being configured to receive light from the in-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from input grating to fold grating; thus the fold grating has at least an area of the array configured to receive light from the input grating), a last grating area of the array being configured to forward light to the out-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from fold grating to output grating; thus the fold grating has at least an area of the array configured to forward light to the output grating); which is configured to guide light from the in-coupling grating via the additional grating to the out-coupling grating and enable out-coupling of the light from the out-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from input grating to fold grating; light travels from fold grating to output grating).
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein any grating area except the last grating area of the array being configured to pass on light received from a previous grating to at least one next additional grating; at least two grating areas have a common physical interface by being directly connected to each other and grating vectors of different directions; and the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating are linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors, and a sum of the grating vectors of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating and the out-coupling grating is zero separately for each optical path. Popovich and Waldern are related because both disclose waveguide displays.
Waldern teaches an apparatus wherein any grating area except the last grating area of the array being configured to pass on light received from a previous grating to at least one next additional grating ([0105] teaches: display image is propagated down the fold grating to be turned into the output grating; therefore a preceding grating area passes the propagating light to a succeeding grating area);
at least two grating areas have a common physical interface by being directly connected to each other and grating vectors of different directions ([0123-0126] teaches: stepped fold RKV segmented into multiple zones, wherein the angle of each section changes, and scanned beam exposes the RKV with a different angle in discrete steps across the aperture; [0125] teaches: waveguide can be a single piece; thus the stepped fold RKV can contain discrete steps in a single piece). Popovich and Tervo are related because both disclose optical waveguides.
Tervo teaches an apparatus wherein an apparatus wherein the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating are linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors (Figures 4A-4C depict: linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors; these common base vectors are: DOE1, DOE2 and DOE3; [0064] teaches: light expanded into two dimensions; Examiner notes that under BRI any two non-parallel vectors form a basis for the two dimensional grating vector plane, and therefore the disclosed in-plane grating vectors may be represented as linear combinations of two such common base vectors, thus represented by DOE1-DOE3 of Figures 4A-4C), and a sum of the grating vectors of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating and the out-coupling grating is zero separately for each optical path ([0104] teaches: summation of grating vectors for each of the paths in the at least two different paths is substantially equal to zero).
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 Popovich in view of Waldern and Tervo and provide an apparatus wherein any grating area except the last grating area of the array being configured to pass on light received from a previous grating to at least one next additional grating; at least two grating areas have a common physical interface by being directly connected to each other and grating vectors of different directions; and the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating are linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors, and a sum of the grating vectors of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating and the out-coupling grating is zero separately for each optical path. Doing so would allow for controlling the direction and propagation of light through successive grating regions along respective optical paths, thereby improving pupil expansion and alignment of light coupled through and out the waveguide.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first vector of the two base vectors has a different magnitude from that of a second vector of the two base vectors (Tervo: [0041] teaches: grating vectors may have different orientations and lengths; 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).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a linear combination of the base vectors is formed by multiplying at least one of base vectors by an integer and adding the base vectors together (Tervo: [0083] teaches: weighted vector summation of grating vectors using integer weight values; 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).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the array comprises at least two grating areas (Figure 11A depicts: grating area array and light propagation from each) each configured to cause light to turn in a lateral direction in the optical path from the in-coupling grating to the out-coupling grating ([0091] discloses: fold grating causes the image to be turned 90 degrees into the output grating; thus causing the light to turn in a lateral direction).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein orientation of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating, and a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other. However, optimizing a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide with respect to the design of the apparatus would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Waldern discusses in [0078] that each grating segment is optimized for its corresponding output angle at that position. Doing so would allow for a desired propagation path and light configuration. The prior art recognizes grating orientation and lightguide geometry as parameters affecting light propagation, thus optimizing a geographical surface parameter according to these variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose an apparatus wherein orientation of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating, and a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the geometrical surface parameter is one of the following: an area and a shape (Examiner notes that the area of the light guide of Popovich is considered to be optimized with respect to the orientation of the in-coupling grating and additional grating as the “area” is waveguides is the cross sectional geometry and is responsible for how light is confined and propagated across/through the waveguide; see [0091] discussing angles of fold grating to direct light; therefore area is considered to be optimized with respect to the orientations of the gratings).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein a number of the grating areas and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other. However, optimizing a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide with respect to the design of the apparatus would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Waldern discusses in [0078] that each grating segment is optimized for its corresponding output angle at that position. Doing so would allow for a desired propagation path and light configuration. The prior art recognizes grating orientation and lightguide geometry as parameters affecting light propagation, thus optimizing a geographical surface parameter according to these variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose an apparatus wherein a number of the grating areas and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein density of lines of the grating areas and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other. However, optimizing a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide with respect to the design of the apparatus would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Waldern discusses in [0078] that each grating segment is optimized for its corresponding output angle at that position. Doing so would allow for a desired propagation path and light configuration. The prior art recognizes grating orientation and lightguide geometry as parameters affecting light propagation, thus optimizing a geographical surface parameter according to these variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose an apparatus wherein density of lines of the grating areas and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein a shape of the additional grating and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other. However, optimizing a geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide with respect to the design of the apparatus would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Waldern discusses in [0078] that each grating segment is optimized for its corresponding output angle at that position. Doing so would allow for a desired propagation path and light configuration. The prior art recognizes grating orientation and lightguide geometry as parameters affecting light propagation, thus optimizing a geographical surface parameter according to these variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose an apparatus wherein a shape of the additional grating and the geometrical surface parameter of the lightguide are optimized with respect to each other since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Popovich discloses an augmented or virtual reality eyewear apparatus (Waveguide display; Figures 1 and 11A-11B; [0004] discloses: for augmented or virtual reality), comprising:
an additional grating ([0076] discloses: 106A, fold grating) arranged between an in-coupling grating ([0076] discloses: 105A, input grating) and an out-coupling grating ([0076] discloses: 107A, output grating) wherein the additional grating comprises an array of a plurality of grating areas ([0101] discloses and Figures 11A-11B depict: rolled K-vector grating, containing discrete grating elements; [0007] discloses: fold grating can be a rolled k-vector grating; thus the fold grating is considered an array of a plurality of grating areas) arranged in a successive manner (Figure 11A depicts: 212-215, discrete grating elements, arranged in a successive manner) in a direction of propagation light between the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating (Figure 1 depicts: 106A, fold grating, in a direction of propagation light between 105A, input grating and 107A, output grating), a first grating area of the array being configured to receive light from the in-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from input grating to fold grating; thus the fold grating has at least an area of the array configured to receive light from the input grating), a last grating area of the array being configured to forward light to the out-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from fold grating to output grating; thus the fold grating has at least an area of the array configured to forward light to the output grating); which is configured to guide light from the in-coupling grating via the additional grating to the out-coupling grating and enable out-coupling of the light from the out-coupling grating ([0007] discloses: light travels from input grating to fold grating; light travels from fold grating to output grating).
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein any grating area except the last grating area of the array being configured to pass on light received from a previous grating to at least one next additional grating; at least two grating areas have a common physical interface by being directly connected to each other and grating vectors of different directions; and the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating are linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors, and a sum of the grating vectors of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating and the out-coupling grating is zero separately for each optical path. Popovich and Waldern are related because both disclose waveguide displays.
Waldern teaches an apparatus wherein any grating area except the last grating area of the array being configured to pass on light received from a previous grating to at least one next additional grating ([0105] teaches: display image is propagated down the fold grating to be turned into the output grating; therefore a preceding grating area passes the propagating light to a succeeding grating area);
at least two grating areas have a common physical interface by being directly connected to each other and grating vectors of different directions ([0123-0126] teaches: stepped fold RKV segmented into multiple zones, wherein the angle of each section changes, and scanned beam exposes the RKV with a different angle in discrete steps across the aperture; [0125] teaches: waveguide can be a single piece; thus the stepped fold RKV can contain discrete steps in a single piece). Popovich and Tervo are related because both disclose optical waveguides.
Tervo teaches an apparatus wherein an apparatus wherein the in-coupling grating and the out-coupling grating are linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors (Figures 4A-4C depict: linear combinations of two non-parallel and common base vectors; these common base vectors are: DOE1, DOE2 and DOE3; [0064] teaches: light expanded into two dimensions; Examiner notes that under BRI any two non-parallel vectors form a basis for the two dimensional grating vector plane, and therefore the disclosed in-plane grating vectors may be represented as linear combinations of two such common base vectors, thus represented by DOE1-DOE3 of Figures 4A-4C), and a sum of the grating vectors of the in-coupling grating, the additional grating and the out-coupling grating is zero separately for each optical path ([0104] teaches: summation of grating vectors for each of the paths in the at least two different paths is substantially equal to zero).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al. (US 2018/0284440 A1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 2019/0212699 A1) in view of Tervo et al. (US 2019/0004219), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schultz et al. (US 2020/0209630).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Popovich fails to disclose an apparatus wherein an angle between the directions of the base vectors is at least one of the following: 45°, 60° and 90°. Popovich and Schultz are related because both disclose light guides.
Schultz teaches an apparatus wherein an angle between the directions of the base vectors is at least one of the following: 45°, 60° and 90° ([0009] teaches: relative orientations of 45 or 60 degrees of relative grating vectors; considered analogous to the base vectors).
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 Popovich in view of Schultz and provide an apparatus wherein an angle between the directions of the base vectors is at least one of the following: 45°, 60° and 90°. Doing so would allow for selecting the angular relationship between the grating vectors to control the direction of light propagation and distribution through the waveguide.
Compact Prosecution
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims, if supported by the specification, to more particularly define the optical transfer between the directly connected grating areas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Waldern et al. (US 2019/0339558) and Kihara et al. (US 2006/0002274) disclose relevant optical apparatus but fails to disclose the correct vector structure.
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 - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights