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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 9/3/2025 in which Applicant lists claims 3-9, 12-18 as being withdrawn, claims 1-2, 11, 20 as being original, and claims 10, 19 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-20 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Although claim 11 was labeled “(Original),” it was withdrawn in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/3/2025 for being drawn to a non-elected Species, and will be treated as such. However, applicant is reminded that the status identifier of each claim must be included and accurate or the amendment can be held as non-compliant. M.P.E.P. 714 II(C)(A).
Information Disclosure Statement
In compliance with MPEP 609.02.II.A.2, as considered in the parent application, the citation from Webster’s Dictionary from page 87 of the 3/26/2024 IDS has been additionally considered.
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 9/3/2025 was considered.
Specification
It is noted that per 37 CFR 1.111 and MPEP 714.02 and 714.03, a complete reply must either comply with the formal requirements or specifically traverse each one not complied with. Presently, Applicant’s reply is not fully responsive to the Office Action mailed 6/3/2025 as the reply has not corrected or traversed the objections to the specification. However, the amendments substantially respond to the rejections, objections and requirements of the previous Office Action and therefore are interpreted to be a bona fide attempt to advance prosecution. As such, this office action has simply reiterated the rejection, objection, or requirement not addressed by the amendments (see the objection to the abstract set forth below).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words and contains legal phraseology “comprises” and “comprising”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The amendments to the claims dated 9/3/2025 are accepted. The objections to the claims cited in the Office Action mailed 6/3/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims dated 9/3/2025 are accepted. The rejections of the claims made under 35 USC 112(b) and cited in the Office Action mailed 6/3/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Popovich et al. (WO 2017/162999 A1, of record) does not teach or make obvious “a first input coupler for directing a first spectral band of light from a source into a first waveguide pupil; a second input coupler for directing a second spectral band of light from the source into a second waveguide pupil; first and second fold gratings for diffracting the first and second spectral bands respectively”, this argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed. As cited in the Non-Final Office Action, at least steps 2023 and 2024, and page 22 line 21 through page 23 line 23, and page 27 lines 1-19, describe how the first and second diffraction gratings of the input coupler(s) (elements 233, 237, 238) direct a first spectral band (“wavelength λ1”) and a second spectral band (“wavelength λ2”). Further, cited in the Non-Final Office Action, at least steps 2025 and 2026, and page 22 line 21 through page 23 line 23, and page 27 lines 1-19, describe how the first and second fold gratings (elements 235, 236, 241, 242) diffract the first and second spectral bands. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 19 and 20 are maintained.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Popovich does not teach or make obvious “providing a waveguide supporting a single grating layer, a source of light, a first input coupler, a second input coupler”, this argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed. As cited in the Non-Final Office Action, at least figure 14 of Popovich discloses a waveguide supporting a single grating layer (see at least waveguide 231 which supports a single grating layer containing the gratings 233, 235, 236, 234). Therefore, Popovich discloses “a waveguide supporting a single grating layer, a source of light, a first input coupler, a second input coupler, an output coupler” in the same way supported by the instant specification wherein:
“providing a waveguide supporting a single grating layer; a source of light; a first input coupler; a second input coupler” (paras. [0025], [0067]),
“waveguide display can further include a source of data-modulated light optically coupled to the waveguide” (para. [0047]).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 is maintained.
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popovich et al., International Publication Number WO 2017/162999 A1, of record in at least the 3/26/2024 IDS (hereafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 20, Popovich discloses a waveguide display (see at least figures 13, 14 and 19; page 7, line 19 through page 8, line 2; and page 14, lines 17-18), comprising:
a waveguide supporting a single grating layer (see at least figures 13-14, waveguide 230/231 wherein input grating 233, output grating 234 and fold gratings 235 are formed in the waveguide in a single layer);
a source of image-modulated light optically coupled to the waveguide (see at least figure 13, light source 232; page 7, line 19 through page 8, line 2; page 14, lines 17-18; and page 28, line 21 through page 29, line 23);
a first input coupler for directing a first spectral band of light from the source into a first waveguide pupil (see at least figures 13-14, elements 233, and one of 237 and 238, figure 19, step 2023; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
a second input coupler for directing a second spectral band of light from the source into a second waveguide pupil (see at least figures 13-14, elements 233, and another of 237 and 238, figure 19, step 2024; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
first and second fold gratings for diffracting the first and second spectral bands respectively (see at least figures 13-14, elements 235 and 236, figure 19, steps 2025 and 2026; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19); and
an output coupler comprising multiplexed first and second gratings for diffracting the first and second bands respectively out of the waveguide (see at least figures 13-14, elements 234, 239 and 240, figure 19, steps 2027 and 2028; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al., International Publication Number WO 2017/162999 A1, of record in at least the 3/26/2024 IDS (hereafter Popovich) in view of Schultz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0209630 A1, of record in at least one of the 5/13/2024 IDS (hereafter Schultz).
Regarding claim 19, Popovich discloses a method of displaying a color image comprising the steps of (see at least figures 13, 14 and 19, as well as page 7, line 19 through page 8, line 2; page 14, lines 17-18; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19):
providing a waveguide supporting a single grating layer (see at least figures 13-14, waveguide 230/231 wherein input grating 233, output grating 234 and fold gratings 235/236 are formed in the waveguide in a single layer; figure 19, step 2021; and page 27, lines 1-19), a source of light (see at least figure 13, light source 232; figure 19, step 2022; and page 27, lines 1-19), a first input coupler (see at least figure 13, elements 233, and one of 237 and 238; figure 19, step 2023; and page 27, lines 1-19), a second input coupler (see at least figure 13, elements 233, and another of 237 and 238; figure 19, step 2024; and page 27, lines 1-19), an output coupler comprising multiplexed first and second gratings (see at least figure 13, elements 234, 239 and 240; figure 19, steps 2027-2028; and page 27, lines 1-19), a first fold grating (see at least figure 13, element 235 or 236; figure 19, step 2025; and page 27, lines 1-19), and a second fold grating (see at least figure 13, the other of element 235 or 236; figure 19, step 2026; and page 27, lines 1-19);
directing a first spectral band from the source into a first waveguide pupil via the first input coupler (see at least figure 13, elements 232, 233 and 237; figure 19, steps 2021-2023; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
directing a second spectral band from the source into a second waveguide pupil via the second input coupler (see at least figure 13, elements 232, 233 and 238; figure 19, steps 2021-2022 and 2024; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
beam expanding the first spectral band light and redirecting it onto the output coupler by means of the first fold grating (see at least figure 13, elements 235 and 239; figure 19, step 2025; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
beam expanding the second spectral band light and redirecting it onto the output coupler by means of the second fold grating (see at least figure 13, elements 236 and 240; figure 19, step 2026; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
extracting from the waveguide the first spectral band light by means of the first multiplexed grating (see at least figure 13, element 239; figure 19, step 2027; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19); and
extracting from the waveguide the second spectral band light by means of the second multiplexed grating (see at least figure 13, element 240; figure 19, step 2028; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19).
Popovich does not explicitly disclose, with respect to the embodiment(s) set forth in figures 13, 14 and 19, that the first and second multiplexed gratings of the output coupler perform beam expansion.
However, Popovich further teaches that the multiplexed output gratings may additionally perform beam expansion (see at least page 15, lines 7-12; page 30, lines 19-20; page 31, line 22 through page 32, line 3; and page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of the method set forth by figures 13, 14 and 19 of Popovich to include the further teachings of Popovich so that the first and second multiplexed gratings of the output coupler also perform beam expansion, for the purpose of achieving the predictable result of providing pupil expansion in both a first and second direction (e.g. horizontal and vertical directions), for each of the first and second spectral bands, while having a reasonable expectation for success (Popovich, page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11).
Popovich does not explicitly disclose, with respect to the embodiment(s) set forth in figures 13, 14 and 19, that the output coupler includes multiplexed first and second gratings, a first fold grating and a second fold grating all multiplexed together.
However, Schultz teaches a similar waveguide display wherein multiple gratings, including fold gratings and output gratings which perform two-dimensional beam expansion, may be multiplexed together (see at least figures 4-8C, ODO, paras. [0007]-[0012], [0067]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of the method set forth by figures 13, 14 and 19 of Popovich to include the teachings of Schultz so that the output coupler includes multiplexed first and second gratings, a first fold grating and a second fold grating, for the purpose using the known technique of multiplexing diffraction gratings to minimize the size of a waveguide by achieving the predictable result of providing pupil expansion in both a first and second direction (e.g. horizontal and vertical directions), for each of the first and second spectral bands, while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al., International Publication Number WO 2017/162999 A1, of record in at least the 3/26/2024 IDS (hereafter Popovich) in view of Vallius et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0203230 A1, of record in at least one of the 5/13/2024 IDS (hereafter Vallius).
Regarding claim 1, Popovich discloses a waveguide display (see at least figures 13, 14 and 19; page 7, line 19 through page 8, line 2; and page 14, lines 17-18), comprising:
a waveguide supporting a single grating layer having a general light propagation direction (see at least figures 13-14, waveguide 230/231 wherein input grating 233, output grating 234 and fold gratings 235/236 are formed in the waveguide in a single layer, and input light 1030 propagates in a general light propagation direction toward output light 1033);
a source of data-modulated light optically coupled to said waveguide (see at least figure 13, light source 232; page 7, line 19 through page 8, line 2; page 14, lines 17-18; and page 28, line 21 through page 29, line 23);
a first input coupler for directing a first spectral band of light from said source into a first waveguide pupil (see at least figures 13-14, elements 233, and one of 237 and 238, figure 19, step 2023; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
a second input coupler for directing a second spectral band of light from said source into a second waveguide pupil (see at least figures 13-14, elements 233, and another of 237 and 238, figure 19, step 2024; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
an output coupler comprising multiplexed first and second gratings (see at least figures 13-14, elements 234, 239 and 240, figure 19, steps 2027 and 2028; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
a first fold grating for directing said first spectral band along a first path from said first pupil to said output coupler and providing a first beam expansion (see at least figure 13, elements 235 and 239; figure 19, step 2025; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
at least a second fold grating for directing said second spectral band along a second path from said second pupil to said output coupler and providing a first beam expansion (see at least figure 13, elements 236 and 240; figure 19, step 2026; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19);
said first multiplexed grating directing said first spectral band out of said waveguide in a first direction (see at least figure 13, element 239; figure 19, step 2027; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19); and
said second multiplexed grating directing said second spectral band out of said waveguide in said first direction (see at least figure 13, element 240; figure 19, step 2028; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19).
Popovich does not explicitly disclose, with respect to the embodiment(s) set forth in figures 13, 14 and 19, that the first and second multiplexed gratings of the output coupler perform beam expansion orthogonal to said first beam expansion.
However, Popovich further teaches that the multiplexed output gratings may additionally perform beam expansion (see at least page 15, lines 7-12; page 30, lines 19-20; page 31, line 22 through page 32, line 3; and page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of the method set forth by figures 13, 14 and 19 of Popovich to include the further teachings of Popovich so that the first and second multiplexed gratings of the output coupler also perform beam expansion, for the purpose of achieving the predictable result of providing pupil expansion in both a first and second direction, for each of the first and second spectral bands, while having a reasonable expectation for success (Popovich, page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11).
Popovich further implies, but does not explicitly state, that the beam expansion performed by the multiplexed first and second output gratings is in a direction orthogonal to the beam expansion of the first and second fold gratings (Popovich, page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11).
However, Vallius clearly teaches a waveguide display including at least one input coupler/grating (see at least element 112 or 1012; paras [0026]-[0027], [0034], [0090]-[0091]), at least one fold grating (see at least element 114, 1014a or 1014b; paras [0029], [0034], [0089]-[0091]), and at least one output coupler/grating (see at least element 116 or 1016; paras [0026]-[0027], [0034], [0090]-[0091]), wherein the input, fold and output gratings are in a single waveguide grating layer (paras. [0032]-[0033]), and wherein the beam expansion performed by the at least one fold grating is in a horizontal or vertical direction (paras [0029], [0091]), and the expansion performed by the at least one output coupler/grating is in the other of the horizontal or vertical direction (paras [0029], [0091]), wherein it is understood in the art that the horizontal and vertical directions are orthogonal to one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of the method set forth by figures 13, 14 and 19 of Popovich to include the further teachings of Popovich, and the teachings of Vallius, so that said first and second multiplexed gratings direct said first and second spectral bands out of said waveguide in a first direction with beam expansion orthogonal to said first beam expansion, for the purpose of achieving the predictable result of providing pupil expansion in both first and second orthogonal directions, for each of the first and second spectral bands, while having a reasonable expectation for success (Popovich, page 32, line 18 through page 33, line 11; and paras [0029], [0091] of Vallius).
Regarding claim 2, Popovich in view of Vallius discloses the limitations of claim 1, and that said first and second input couplers each comprise at least one of a prism and a grating (see at least figures 13-14, elements 233, 237 and 238, figure 19, step 2023-2024; page 22, line 21 through page 23, line 23; and page 27, lines 1-19 of Popovich).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al., International Publication Number WO 2017/162999 A1, of record in at least the 3/26/2024 IDS (hereafter Popovich) in view of Vallius et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0203230 A1, of record in at least one of the 5/13/2024 IDS (hereafter Vallius) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0209630 A1, of record in at least one of the 5/13/2024 IDS (hereafter Schultz).
Regarding claim 10, Popovich does not specifically disclose that the fold gratings are multiplexed with the output coupler, wherein the multiplexed fold gratings and output coupler have prescriptions for performing two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide.
However, Schultz teaches a similar waveguide display wherein multiple gratings, including fold gratings and output gratings which perform two-dimensional beam expansion, may be multiplexed together (see at least figures 4-8C, ODO, paras. [0007]-[0012], [0067]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Popovich in view of Vallius to include the teachings of Schultz so that the fold gratings are multiplexed with the output coupler, wherein the multiplexed fold gratings and output coupler have prescriptions for performing two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide, for the purpose using the known technique of multiplexing diffraction gratings to minimize the size of a waveguide by achieving the predictable result of providing pupil expansion in both a first and second direction (e.g. horizontal and vertical directions) and also extracting light from the waveguide, for each of the first and second spectral bands, while having a reasonable expectation for success.
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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/25/2025
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872