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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/15/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present invention discloses,
“… the second diffractive optical element (output diffractive optical element) is designed so that its diffraction grating structure corresponds to the curvature of the curved surface reflector, thereby causing the reflected diffracted light to be collimated. In particular, at least one of a pitch and a slanted angle of the diffraction grating is formed differently by location in correspondence with the curvature, such that the reflected light propagates in parallel directions after reflection.” (Remarks, p. 5, 12/15/2025.)
Applicant argues that Nokia does not disclose this. However, these elements, directed to the inventive concept, are not being directly claimed. Rather, the structure, as claimed, is met by the prior art. For these reasons, the previous rejection is being maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/136306 A1 (herein “Nokia”, cited on the IDS submitted 10/24/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Nokia discloses in Figs. 4a and 4B:
A waveguide display apparatus for correcting curved surface reflection distortion, the waveguide display apparatus comprising:
a waveguide (401) configured to guide light (402) inputted from an outside of the waveguide (401);
a first diffractive optical element (401a) disposed on the waveguide (401), the first diffractive optical element (401a) configured to diffract the light (402) inputted from the outside of the waveguide (401) to an inside of the waveguide (shown in Fig. 4A); and
a second diffractive optical element (401c) disposed on the waveguide (401), the second diffractive optical element (401c) configured to diffract the light guided by the waveguide (401) to output a plurality of diffracted lights (403) in a direction of a curved surface reflector (405) located outside of the waveguide (401),
wherein the second diffractive optical element (401c) has a structure of a diffraction grating corresponding to a curvature of the curved surface reflector (405) such that the waveguide (401) is configured to reflect the plurality of diffracted lights (403) at different locations of the curved surface reflector (405) in directions parallel (406) to each other (wherein the beams 406 reflected by reflector 405 are collimated, and thus parallel; p. 4, lines 29-32; p. 6, lines 14-18 – wherein collimated means parallel rays),
wherein the structure of the diffraction grating includes one or more of; a pitch of the diffraction grating or a slanted angle of the diffraction grating (p. 6, lines 7-10, wherein the spacing between the grooves of the grating is the pitch).
Regarding claim 5, Nokia discloses in Figs. 4a and 4B: the curved surface reflector (405) is spaced apart from the waveguide (401) and is located outside of the waveguide (401).
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/136306 A1 (herein “Nokia”, cited on the IDS submitted 10/24/2024) in view of CN 110161680 A (herein “Liu”, cited on the IDS submitted 10/24/2024).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Nokia is silent as to the first and second diffractive optical elements being holographic optical elements, and the embodiment used shows a curved waveguide. However, holographic optical elements are commonly used in HUDs. Liu gives an example of a HUD using holographic diffractive elements (104, 105) with a waveguide (104) having a flat plate shape. Liu discloses in Fig. 1, the first and second diffractive optical elements being holographic optical elements (104, 105), with a waveguide (104) having a flat plate shape. Nokia teaches that this arrangement results in enlarging the viewing angle and large exit pupil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the holographic diffractive elements and flat plate shaped waveguide, so as to increase the viewing angle and thus improve the viewer’s experience.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights