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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 16 April, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the prior art rejections of the Office Action mailed on 20 January, 2026 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April, 2026 regarding the amendments obviating the 112(b) rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments do not overcome several of the 112(b) rejections made in the Office Action mailed on 20 January, 2026, and applicant has not presented any proposed reasons to withdraw the rejections. Therefore they are maintained and repeated below.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1: “wherein the first diffraction grating incouples the incident light in a range of 60 degrees or more including a direction normal to the light guide substrate” is ambiguous because “light in a range of 60 degrees” could mean some light falling within this range or any light within this range/light spanning this range.
Regarding claims 11 and 12: It is unclear how the structure of the second diffraction grating affects the total internal reflection of light in the light guide substrate, since the second diffraction grating outcouples light from the light guide substrate.
Claims 2-16 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11,231,579 (see Figs. 4a-b and col. 7, lines 49-end).
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights