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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 24, 2025, which has been entered into file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amened claims 1, 4, 19, and 47 and has canceled claim 3.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 42, and 47-49 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 15-16, 19-20, 22, 42, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a diffractive mirror forming a portion of the first waveguide” and claim 47 has been amended to include the phrase “diffractive mirror forming a portion of the waveguide”. The specification fails to teach explicitly how to make the diffractive mirror forming a portion of the waveguide. The specification fails to teach any working example for the diffractive mirror forming a portion of the waveguide.
In light of the amendment to claims 1 and 47, the specification fails to teach that the diffractive mirror includes an optical prescription (as recited in claim 5), with curved surface, polarization characteristics, aspheric form, coating for rotating the polarization of light, mechanically deformability, and tilt adjustability (as recited in claim 6), or an array of reflective elements (as recited in claim 42) and has polarization characteristics for compensating polarization rotation (as recited in claim 49).
Claims 2-11, 15-16, 19-20, 22, 42 and 48-49 inherit the rejection from their respective based claim.
Claims 5, 6, 42 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In light of the amendment to claims 1 and 47, the specification fails to teach that the diffractive mirror includes an optical prescription (as recited in claim 5), with curved surface, polarization characteristics, aspheric form, coating for rotating the polarization of light, mechanically deformability, and tilt adjustability (as recited in claim 6), or an array of reflective elements (as recited in claim 42) and has polarization characteristics for compensating polarization rotation (as recited in claim 49).
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 1-11, 15-16, 19-20, 22, 42, and 47-49 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a diffractive mirror forming a portion of the first waveguide” and claim 47 has been amended to include the phrase “diffractive mirror forming a portion of the waveguide”. These phrases are confusing and indefinite since the specification fails to objectively define how the mirror could form a portion of the waveguide specifically no figures or description concerning this feature. This makes the scopes of the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, these phrases are being interpreted as the “mirror is attached to a waveguide”.
The amended phrase “holographic polymer dispersed liquid crystal HPDLC grating … for directing sunlight away” recited in claim 19 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how does this HPDLC grating physically relates to other parts of the display. This makes the scopes of the claim unclear.
The phrase “for compensating polarization rotation introduced by beam propagation in the waveguide” recited in claim 49 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how does the polarization rotation is introduced in the waveguide.
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) 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 47, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Mason (US 2016/0274356 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Valera et al (US 2016/0041387 A1) and US patent issued to Latta et al (PN. 4,784,447).
Claims 1 and 47 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Mason teaches, with regard to claim 1, a near eye display (please see Figure 3), that is comprised of an image source (please see paragraph [0018]) serves as the picture generating unit for projecting collimated image bearing light (2, Figures 1, 3 and 5, paragraph [0036]) over a field of view, a first waveguide (1) comprising an input coupler (12, Figures 3 and 5) for coupling the light from the picture generating unit into a total internal reflection path in the first waveguide and an output diffraction grating (5) for provide beam expansion and diffraction of light out of the total internal reflection path, (please see Figure 3) and a combiner (70) with a reflective coating (72) that functions as the mirror that is configured to reflect light diffracted by the output diffraction grating back through the first waveguide into an optical path towards an eyebox, (please see Figure 3, paragraphs [0032] to [0034], [0038] and [0045]).
With regard to claim 47, Mason also implicitly includes a method for forming a near eye display image that comprises the steps of providing an image source serves as the picture generation unit, a waveguide comprising the input coupler (12, Figures 1, 3 and 5 of Mason) and a mirror (72, Figures 3 and 4), the step of coupling light into the waveguide, using diffracting light using the output diffraction grating (5) and using the mirror (72) to reflect the diffracted light back through the waveguide into an optical path towards an eyebox f a viewer, (please see Figure 3 of Mason).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the mirror is forming a portion of the first waveguide. This feature is rejected under 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs, for the reasons set forth above. This feature can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Valera et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display wherein a reflective coating (18, Figures 2 and 3) serves as the mirror may be attached to the waveguide (11). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Valera et al to modify the display of Mason to alternatively be attached to the waveguide as a portion of the waveguide for the benefit for the mirror may be fixed with the waveguide portion to ensure the image quality.
Claims 1 and 47 have been amended to include the phrase “a diffractive mirror”.
These however references do not teach explicitly that the mirror comprises diffractive mirror. But a diffractive mirror such as reflective holographic mirror is well known in the art, which is explicitly taught by Latta et al, for reflecting light, (please see Figure 5). The reflective holographic mirror comprises reflection hologram formed on a flat surface. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Latta et al to alternatively make the mirror a reflective holographic mirror for the benefit of using art well known holographic mirror to achieve the reflection function.
With regard to claim 4, Latta et al teaches that the diffractive mirror may be reflective holographic mirror.
With regard to claim 6, Valera et al teaches that the mirror or the reflective coating (18) may be cooperative with a quarter wave plate (26, Figure 3) which makes the mirror assembly comprises at least one coating for rotating the polarization of the light extracted from the waveguide.
With regard to claim 8, Mason teaches that the first waveguide further comprises an intermediate diffraction grating (13, Figures 3 and 5) that serves as the fold grating wherein the fold grating is configured to provide a first beam expansion and the output grating is to provide a second beam expansion that is orthogonal to the first beam expansion, (please see paragraph [0034] and [0038]).
With regard to claim 10, Mason teaches that the input coupler comprises a reflection grating and the output coupler may comprise a transmission grating, (please see Figures 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 42, Valera in a different embodiment teaches to include an array of reflective coatings (18, Figure 5) that serves as the array of the mirror.
With regard to claim 49, Valera teaches that the reflective coating (18) may be cooperated with a quarter waveplate (26, Figure 3) that make the mirror combination has a polarization compensation property.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 11, 15, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Valera et al and Latta et al as applied to claims 1 and 47 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Waldern et al (US 2018/0188542 A1).
The near eye display taught by Mason in combination with the teachings of Valera et al and Latta et al as described in claims 1 and 47 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 2 and 48, Mason teaches that the input and output couplers each comprises diffractive grating, (please see paragraph [0033]). These references however do not teach explicitly that the input or output coupler include optical prescription for compensation for display aberration and distortion. Waldern et al teaches a waveguide device wherein the diffractive grating may have optical prescription that compensate or correct the wavefront distortion, (please see paragraph [0182]). It is implicitly true that a diffractive optical element may either implicitly or be modified to correct color aberrations. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Waldern et al to modify the input and/or output diffraction grating couplers to include optical prescription for the benefit of allowing compensation of the aberration and wavefront distortion.
With regard to claim 7, Waldern et al teaches that the output grating coupler may comprise Bragg grating, (please see paragraph [0120]). This means in light of the Waldern et al, the light reflected from the mirror back through the output grating coupler, as taught by Mason (please see Figure 3), has to be off-Bragg in order for the light to be able to pass through the output grating coupler and to the eyebox.
With regard to claim 11, Mason teaches to include image source as the picture generation unit, it however does not teach explicitly that the image source comprises the elements recited in the claims. Waldern et al teaches that the image source may comprise a module including a light source (101, Figure 5), a microdisplay panel (102) and a projection lens (103, please see paragraph [0136]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Waldern et al to specifically using light source, microdisplay panel and the projection lens as the picture generation unit for the benefit of using art well-known image source to generate the image light.
With regard to claim 15, Mason in light of Valera et al does not teach explicitly to includes a second waveguide. Waldern et al teaches a color display wherein the image source or the picture generation unit comprises a light source configured to emit a first wavelength light and a second wavelength light, (i.e. red, green and/or blue lights), wherein the first wavelength light (such as red light) is coupled into the first waveguide (104R) and the second wavelength light (such as green light) is coupled into the second waveguide (104G) and wherein the first waveguide and the second waveguide form a stack (please see Figure 5). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Waldern et al to modify the display to include different waveguides for displaying different color or wavelength of lights for the benefit of making the display a fully color display.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Valera et al and Latta et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Sunnari (US 2020/0371353 A1).
The near eye display taught by Mason in combination with the teachings of Valera et al and Latta et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, thee references do not teach explicitly that the mirror includes a base curvature or a curved mirror. Sunnari in the same field of endeavor teaches a display arrangement that is comprised of a curved mirror (14, Figure 1) and a curved transparent substrate (10) wherein the mirror is configured to reflect light extracted from and through a waveguide (12) towards the curved transparent substrate (10) that is configured to reflect light towards an eyebox forming a virtual image viewable through the transparent curved substrate from the eyebox, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings Sunnari to provide a curved mirror and a curved transparent substrate to provide a different arrangement for the display device.
In light of amendment to claim 1, the instant application does not teach explicitly that a diffractive mirror has a base curvature or a curved surface. The claims therefore are rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph. This feature can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. It is known in the art that a holographic mirror may recorded with a base curvature to provide desired convergence of the light, (as shown in Figure 5 of Latta et al).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Valera et al and Latta et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Chi et al (PN. 10,534,176).
The near eye display taught by Mason in combination with the teachings of Valera et al and Latta et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, these references do not teach explicitly that the output grating provides a dual axis expansion grating configuration. Chi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide with an output coupler wherein the output coupler may expand the image light in more than dimensions, (please see column 2, lines 29-32). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Chi et al to modify the output coupler to have dual axes expansion for the benefit of allowing the image output from the output coupler be expanded in dual axes.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Valera et al and Latta et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Popovich et al (US 2013/0101253 A1).
The near eye display taught by Mason in combination with the teachings of Valera et al and Latta et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 16, these references do not teach explicitly to include a waveguide despeckler. Popovich et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display, (please see Figure 9) that is comprised of a despeckling device (62) that is positioned along the optical path from the picture generation unit (60) to the input grating of the waveguide, (please see Figure 9 and paragraph [0080]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Popovich et al to include a despeckler for the benefit of reducing unwanted speckle noise.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason, Valera et al and Latta et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Smith (PN. 5,335,099) and US patent application publication by Waldern et al (US 2019/0212557 A1).
Claim 19 has been amended to necessitate the new ground of rejection.
The near eye display taught by Mason in combination with the teachings of Valera et al and Latta et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended claims 19 and 20, these references do not teach explicitly to include HPDLC grating for directing sunlight away from direction that would otherwise be diffracted or reflected into the eyebox. Smith in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic element (56, Figure 1), that would block the sunlight from entering the eye of the driver. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a holographic element to block the unwanted sunlight.
This reference does not teach the holographic optical element is a holographic polymer dispersed liquid crystal HPDLC gating, (with regard to amendment to claim 19). However holographic polymer dispersed liquid crystal HPDLC gating is a well-known grating in the art as taught by Waldern et al (please see paragraph [0143]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Waldern et al to modify the holographic grating as HPDLC grating for the benefit of using art well-known holographic grating to achieve the sunlight blocking function. It is known in the art that a holographic element implicitly has angle selectivity, which means light incident only at certain angle range would be able to be functioned by the holographic element. The Bragg grating nature of the HPDLC grating as taught by Waldern et al would specifically block off light incident at certain angle range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the claims rejections under 35 USC 112, first and second paragraph, set forth in the previous Office Action, the applicant is respectfully noted although the specification disclose that the mirror may be formed a portion of the waveguide, the specification however fails to teach HOW to make the mirror be formed as a portion of the waveguide. It is not clear if the mirror is being attached to the waveguide or is directed formed on or inside the waveguide. Since there is no working example the specification therefore is not enabling the claimed feature. This feature also make the scopes of the claims unclear. As for claim 19, applicant’s argument fails to provide the structural relationship between the HPDLC grating with other elements in the claims. This makes the scopes of the claims unclear.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the amendment to the claims that have been fully addressed in reasons for rejection set forth above. The applicant is respectfully noted that by amending the mirror to a diffractive mirror to the base claims, there creates enablement and new matters issues to a lot of dependent claims since the specification fail to explicitly teaches the diffractive mirror has the claimed features.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872