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
Claims 22-23 and 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6, 13-16, 18-23 and 28-31 are currently pending. Claims 22-23 and 28-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200142196 A1 to Mills et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Mills discloses an optical device for directing image illumination towards a user for viewing, the optical device comprising: a light-guide optical element (LOE) formed from a light-transmitting material having a first refractive index (Fig. 5 light guide 510), the LOE including: a plurality of surfaces including a pair of parallel major external surfaces for guiding image illumination within the LOE by total internal reflection at the major external surfaces (See Fig. 5 light 520), a first region (See at least Fig. 5 region approximate to light incident area) and a second region (See at least Fig. 5 region approximate to light emission area), a first optical coupling configuration located in the first region (See at least Fig. 5 first surface 513) and a second optical coupling configuration located in the second region (See Fig. 5 second surface 514), the first optical coupling configuration for deflecting a face part of the image illumination that is guided within the first region by total internal reflection at the major external surfaces towards the second region (See Fig. 5), and the second optical coupling configuration configured for deflecting a part of the image illumination that is guided within the LOE by total internal reflection at the major external surfaces from the first to the second region out of the LOE towards the user (See Fig. 5); and an optical material including at least one transparent material directly attached to the LOE at least at the major external surfaces so as to be in direct contact with the major external surfaces at least at the first region and so as to at least partially encapsulate the LOE (See Fig. 5 cladding layer 518), the optical material having a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index so as to maintain conditions of total internal reflection at the major external surfaces (para 73 “A typical light guide comprises light guide material with a refractive index (RI) higher than its surroundings”).
Regarding Claim 2. Mills further discloses the at least one transparent material is formed from a solid-state material (See para 73).
Regarding Claim 3. Mills further discloses the at least one transparent material is formed from one or more layers of optical adhesive (See para 73 “A non-exclusive example of a cladding material with a refractive index of 1.5 is a plastic material (PET, acrylic, Nylon, etc.). A non-exclusive example of a cladding material with a refractive index of 1.2 is a layer of silica sol-gel”).
Regarding Claim 4. Mills further discloses at least one transparent material is a thin coating layer of a polymer or dielectric material (See para 73).
Regarding Claim 18. Mills further discloses at least one optical element attached to the at least one transparent material (Fig. 5 lens layer 519), wherein the at least one optical element includes: a lens attached to a first portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a first of the major external surfaces (See Fig. 5 Fig. 5 lens layer 519), and a protective film attached to a second portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a second of the major external surfaces (See Fig. 5 outcoupler 512).
Regarding Claim 19. Mills further discloses at least one optical element attached to the at least one transparent material (Fig. 5 lens layer 519), wherein the at least one optical element includes: a first lens attached to a first portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a first of the major external surfaces (Fig. 5 lens layer 519), and a second lens attached to a second portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a second of the major external surfaces (See Fig. 5 pupil expander 517).
Regarding Claim 20. Mills further discloses at least one optical element attached to the at least one transparent material, wherein the at least one optical element includes: a first protective film attached to a first portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a first of the major external surfaces (Fig. 5 in-coupler 511), and a second protective film attached to a second portion of the at least one transparent material that is directly attached to a second of the major external surfaces (Fig. 5 outcoupler 512).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20180210202 A1 to Danziger.
Regarding Claim 13. As stated above Mills discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Mills does not specifically disclose that the first optical coupling configuration is implemented as a first plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a first orientation, and wherein the second optical coupling configuration is implemented as a second plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a second orientation that is non-parallel to the first orientation.
However, Danziger discloses the first optical coupling configuration is implemented as a first plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a first orientation (See at least Fig. 1B partially reflecting surfaces 40), and wherein the second optical coupling configuration is implemented as a second plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a second orientation that is non-parallel to the first orientation (See at least Fig. 1B partially reflecting surfaces 45) so as to direct a visible image to the eye of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the first optical coupling configuration is implemented as a first plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a first orientation, and wherein the second optical coupling configuration is implemented as a second plurality of mutually parallel partially reflecting surfaces having a second orientation that is non-parallel to the first orientation.
Regarding Claim 14. Danziger further discloses the first optical coupling configuration is implemented as a first at least one diffractive element associated with one of the major external surfaces (See Fig. 1B), and wherein the second optical coupling configuration is implemented as a second at least one diffractive element associated with one of the major external surfaces (See Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 15. Danziger further discloses a light-absorbing material overlaid on the at least one transparent material (para 192 “distal end of the waveguide … may optionally be painted with light absorbent material (e.g. black paint) to minimize stray reflections”).
Regarding Claim 16. Mills and Danziger do not specifically disclose that the light-absorbing material has a refractive index that is equal to the first refractive index or no more than 10% greater than the first refractive index.
However, Danziger discloses that the light-absorbing material is to minimize stray reflections. The refractive index of the light absorbing material compared to the first refractive index is result-effective variables. In that, a refractive index too high or too low from the first refractive index will encourage TIR and would frustrated the intended purpose of the light absorbing layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the light-absorbing material has a refractive index that is equal to the first refractive index or no more than 10% greater than the first refractive index to minimize stray reflection is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 21. Mills further discloses the LOE is a pre-cut LOE that is cut from a precursor LOE prior to the optical material being directly attached to the LOE such that the LOE includes substantially only an active area in which the image illumination propagates (This limitation is a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113).), and Danziger further discloses wherein one or more perimeter edges of the LOE are coated with at least one layer of opaque material (para 192 “distal end of the waveguide … may optionally be painted with light absorbent material (e.g. black paint) to minimize stray reflections”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871