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 .
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.
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 6-7 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 6-7 previously depended on claim 5. However, claim 5 has been canceled and a version of the limitation has been incorporated into claim 1. The examiner believes it likely that the applicant intends for claim 6 to depend on claim 1, but this amendment has not been made and therefore renders the claim’s dependency unclear (claims 2 and 3 could also be intended).
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret claim 6 such that it depends on claim 1 (claim 7 depends on claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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. The objection of claim 7 is based on the assumption that claim 6 depends on claim 1 and claim 7 depends on claim 6.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-13 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robbins et al. (PGPUB 20170131551, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins discloses an electronic device comprising:
a waveguide configured to propagate light via total internal reflection (TIR) (1000 or 1100);
wherein the waveguide comprises a first substrate and a second substrate (106a and 106b), the first substrate having a first lateral surface facing the second substrate and the second substrate having a second lateral surface facing the first substrate (Figs. 10 and 11);
a first optical coupler in the first substrate and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (116);
a second optical coupler configured to redirect, towards the first optical coupler (112), the light propagating in the waveguide via TIR; and
a partial reflector partially reflective plate on the waveguide and interposed between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface (1020 or 1120 [0105]-[0106] and [0115]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 2, Robbins discloses wherein the first optical coupler comprises a diffractive grating in the first substrate (Figs. 10-11 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Robbins discloses wherein the diffractive grating comprises a volume hologram ([0115]).
Regarding claim 8, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate is configured to reflect a first portion of light and to transmit a second portion of light ([0109]),
Regarding claim 9, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate comprises metal ([0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate comprises dielectric ([0106] a TN LC layer is dielectric).
Regarding claim 11, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate at least partially overlaps the second optical coupler (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Popovich discloses wherein t the partially reflective plate overlaps a portion of the waveguide between the first and second optical couplers (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Robbins discloses further comprising a third optical coupler (204) configured to couple the light into the waveguide, wherein the partially reflective plate at least partially overlaps the third optical coupler and is separate from the first, second and third optical couplers (Figs. 2 and 10 where 204 is used as a display engine to couple light into 112).
Regarding claim 20, Robbins discloses an electronic device comprising:
a waveguide configured to propagate light via total internal reflection (TIR) (1000 or 1100),
wherein the waveguide has a first substrate and a second substrate layered onto the first substrate (106a/b);
a first optical coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple light into the waveguide (112);
a second optical coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (114/116); and
a partially reflective plate between the first substrate and the second substrate (1020/1120),
wherein the partially reflective plate directly contacts the first substrate, the partially reflective plate directly contacts the second substrate, the partially reflective plate is configured to transmit a first portion of the light (Figs. 10-11), and
the partially reflective plate is configured to reflect a second portion of the light ([0109]).
Regarding claim 21, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate is configured to receive the light from the first optical coupler and is configured to transmit and reflect the light towards the second optical coupler ([0104]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 22, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate directly contacts the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface and is separate from the first optical coupler and the second optical coupler (Figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 23, Robbins discloses wherein the partially reflective plate comprises metal ([0106]).
Regarding claim 24, Robins discloses wherein the first optical coupler and the second optical coupler are disposed in the first substrate (Figs. 10-11).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Popovich et al. (PGPUB 20180232048, of record).
Regarding claim 6, Robbins does not disclose wherein the waveguide comprises a third substrate, the first substrate being sandwiched between the second substrate and the third substrate.
However, Popovich teaches a waveguide comprising a third substrate (195A or 194A), the first substrate being sandwiched between the second substrate and the third substrate (Fig. 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Robbins and Popovich such that the light injecting module (204 of Robbins) was placed on the waveguide motivated by reducing the width of the device.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Brown et al. (PGPUB 20140140654).
Regarding claim 16, Robbins discloses an electronic device comprising:
a waveguide configured to propagate light via total internal reflection (TIR) (1000 or 1100),
wherein the waveguide has a first substrate (204), a second substrate (106b), and a third substrate (106a) interposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 10 where 204 is used to inject light into 112);
a first optical coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple light into the waveguide (112);
a second optical coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (114/116); and
a partially reflective plate disposed on the third substrate (1020/1120),
wherein the partially reflective plate is separated from the first substrate by a first non-zero distance (Fig. 10), and is configured to provide the light from the first optical coupler to the second optical coupler ([0104]-[0106]).
While Robbins states that the partially reflective plate (1020/1120) may be embedded within a bulk-substrate ([0104]) they do not explicitly disclose wherein the partially reflective plate is in the third substrate such that it is separated from the second substrate by a second non-zero distance.
However, Brown teaches a partially reflective plate (301/302) that is embedded into a waveguide (Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the inventio to combine Robbins and Brown such that the partially reflective plate is embedded into the third substrate motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 18, modified Robbins discloses wherein the second optical coupler comprises holograms in the third substrate ([0121]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Brown and further in view of Popovich.
Regarding claim 17, modified Robbins does not disclose wherein the first substrate has a first lateral surface that contacts the third substrate, the second substrate has a second lateral surface that contacts the third substrate, the second lateral surface extends parallel to the first lateral surface, and the partially reflective layer extends parallel to the first and second lateral surfaces.
However, Popovich teaches a waveguide wherein the first substrate has a first lateral surface that contacts the third substrate, the second substrate has a second lateral surface that contacts the third substrate, the second lateral surface extends parallel to the first lateral surface, and the partially reflective layer extends parallel to the first and second lateral surfaces (Fig. 26, where the lateral surfaces extend along the X-axis and each substrate and 203 are parallel to this axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Robbins and Popovich such that the substrates are arranged to be in contact with one another motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding Robbins, the office notes that the prior art is relevant for all it contains (MPEP 2123 I). While applicant’s amendment overcomes one particular embodiment in Robbins, it fails to overcome the reference as a whole. Robbins discloses embodiments, other than those previously cited, that include a partially reflective switchable LC layer that is located between the first and second substrates (Figs. 10 and 11). Applicant’s remarks fail to take into account the other embodiments of Robbins and are therefore not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872