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 1-15 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 (see paragraph 0078) or more including a direction normal to the light guide substrate” and “wherein the second diffraction grating outcouples the totally internally reflected light in a range of 60 degrees or more including the direction normal to the light guide substrate” are 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”. For the purpose of examination, either interpretation is considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 2: “light… in a common range of 55 degrees” suffers from similar ambiguity.
Also regarding claim 2: “for any of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength” is ambiguous because “any” could require all wavelengths to meet the claimed condition, or it could require one among the wavelengths to meet the claimed condition. For the purpose of examination, either interpretation is considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 5: The claimed “d-line” is unclear. Applicant should clearly state the relevant wavelength in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the “d-line” is interpreted as 587.56 nm.
Regarding claims 6 and 7: “the total composition being 100% by mole% in terms of oxide” is unclear. Does Applicant mean that the light guide substrate is 100% (by mole%) composed of oxide materials? For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted in this way.
Regarding claim 13: “light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis or in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate for any wavelength of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength” is unclear. Does it mean that light is diffracted in the +x and -x directions (or in the +y and -y directions) and totally internally reflected by the light guide substrate? Additionally, does it require this condition to be met for each of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength, or just one wavelength among them? For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as light is diffracted in the +x and -x directions (or in the +y and -y directions) and totally internally reflected by the light guide substrate, for at least one of the three wavelengths.
Regarding claim 14: “light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis and in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate” is also unclear. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as light is diffracted in the +x and -x directions (or in the +y and -y directions) and totally internally reflected by the light guide substrate, for at least one of the three wavelengths.
Regarding claims 11 and 12: In addition to having the same unclear language as claims 13 and 14 that are noted above, 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. For the purpose of examination, any grating meeting the limitations of the first paragraph of the claim are understood to meet the claim, since the grating period of the second diffraction grating does not determine whether light is coupled into the light guide substrate by TIR.
Claims 2-15 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0141130; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1: Lee disclosesA light guide element (Fig. 2A-2B, waveguide 210) comprising: a light guide substrate (Fig. 2A-2B, substrate 205) that is a single-layer light guide substrate (see paragraph 0057); and a diffraction layer (Fig. 2A-2B, layer containing in-coupler 230 and out-coupler 240) formed on the light guide substrate, wherein the diffraction layer includes a first diffraction grating (Fig. 2A-2B, in-coupler 230) configured to in-couple light into the light guide substrate, the light being incident on the light guide substrate, and a second diffraction grating (Fig. 2A-2B, out-coupler240) configured to outcouple totally internally reflected light having propagated in the light guide substrate out of the light guide substrate, wherein the first diffraction grating incouples the incident light in a range of 60 degrees (see paragraph 0078) or more including a direction normal to the light guide substrate, for at least one wavelength of a first wavelength included in a 450 nm +/- 20 nm band, a second wavelength included in a 530 nm +/- 20 nm band, and a third wavelength included in a 630 nm +/- 20 nm band (see paragraph 0056, 0078), and wherein the second diffraction grating outcouples the totally internally reflected light in a range of 60 degrees or more including the direction normal to the light guide substrate, for at least one wavelength of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength (see paragraph 0064, 0085, 0086).
Regarding claim 2: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the first diffraction grating incouples the incident light, for any of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength, in a common range of 55 degrees or more including the direction normal to the light guide substrate (see paragraphs 0064 and 0083), and wherein the second diffraction grating outcouples the totally internally reflected light, for any of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength, in a common range of 55 degrees or more including the direction normal to the light guide substrate (see paragraphs 0064 and 0083).
Regarding claim 4: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the light guide substrate is an isotropic single crystal substrate (a light guide substrate made of CVD diamond is an isotropic single crystal substrate), or a uniaxial crystal substrate having an optical axis, an angle formed between the optical axis and the direction normal to the light guide substrate being within +/-4 degrees.
Regarding claim 5: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein a refractive index of the light guide substrate for the d-line is greater than 2.05 (diamond has this property; see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 8: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the light guide substrate is a substrate of TiO2, SrTiO3, KTaO3, LiNbO3, SiC, or diamond (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 11: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the second diffraction grating is a two-axis diffraction grating (Fig. 1, grating 140 is a two-axis diffraction grating), in which a unit grating is a rectangular grating (Fig. 1 shows this), and wherein the second diffraction grating has a grating pitch so that when light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, or the third wavelength is incident normal to the second diffraction grating from the light guide substrate, light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis or in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate for any wavelength of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength (since the second diffraction grating receives light that was totally internally reflected by the light guide substrate and outputs light in a range including a normal angle, it is understood to have a structure that meets this limitation, since light traveling in the opposite direction would follow the reverse path).
Regarding claim 12: Lee disclosesThe light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the second diffraction grating is a two-axis diffraction grating, in which a unit grating is a rectangular grating (Fig. 1, grating 140 is a two-axis diffraction grating in which a unit grating is a rectangular grating), and wherein the second diffraction grating has a grating pitch so that when light of any one of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength is incident normal to the second diffraction grating from the light guide substrate, light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis and in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate (since the second diffraction grating receives light that was totally internally reflected by the light guide substrate and outputs light in a range including a normal angle, it is understood to have a structure that meets this limitation, since light traveling in the opposite direction would follow the reverse path).
Regarding claim 15: Lee disclosesA display apparatus (Fig. 1, waveguide display) comprising: the light guide element according to claim 1 (as applied above; see paragraph 0056); and a projector (Fig. 1, image light source 110; see paragraph 0052), wherein light projected from the projector is incident on the light guide element, and emitted from the second diffraction grating (Fig. 1 shows this).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0141130; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 3: Lee discloses the light guide element according to claim 1, as applied above, but does not disclose that an internal transmittance per 10 mm thickness of the light guide substrate in light with a wavelength of 450 nm is 95% or more. However, the internal transmittance of the light guide substrate in light with a wavelength of 450 nm is a result effective variable, which one of ordinary skill in the art would want to maximize in order to minimize loss of blue light in the light guide substrate, which would negatively impact the image if the transmittance were too low. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the device wherein an internal transmittance per 10 mm thickness of the light guide substrate in light with a wavelength of 450 nm is 95% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0141130; hereinafter Lee), as evidenced by Kılıç et al. (The synthesis and characterization of zinc-tellurite semiconducting oxide glasses containing Ta2O5, Mater. Res. Express, 2019; hereinafter Kılıç).
Regarding claim 6: Lee discloses the light guide element according to claim 1, as applied above. Lee further discloses that the light guide substrate can be made of any suitable materials such as glass (see paragraph 0057). Lee fails to disclose that a glass material of the glass substrate is (1) Bi2O3-TeO2 based glass, containing 20% to 50% of Bi2O3 and 10% to 35% of TeO2; or (2) La2O3-B2O3 based glass, containing 10% to 40% of La2O3 and 10% to 35% of B2O3, the total composition being 100% by mole% in terms of oxide. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. As evidenced by Kılıç, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known to include Bi2O3 and TeO2, among other oxides, in glass substrates (Bi2O3, 2nd paragraph of introduction, page 1; TeO2, abstract). Since these were known suitable materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and combine these materials, including as presently claimed, based on their suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7: Lee discloses the light guide element according to claim 1. Lee fails to teach that the light guide substrate contains 20% or more of Bi2O3, and 55% or more of Bi2O3-TeO2-Nb2O5-TiO2-Ta2O5-WO3, when the total composition is 100% by mole% in terms of oxide. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. As evidenced by Kılıç, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known to include each of these compounds in glass substrates (Bi2O3, 2nd paragraph of introduction, page 1; TeO2, abstract; Nb2O5, 2nd paragraph of introduction, page 1; TiO2, 2nd paragraph of introduction, page 1; Ta2O5, title and abstract; WO3 via citation of references [10], [27], and [29]). Since these were known suitable materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and combine these materials, including as presently claimed, based on their suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0141130; hereinafter Lee) in view of Lin et al. (US 2018/0231702; hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 9: Lee discloses the light guide element according to claim 1, as applied above. Lee fails to teach that the diffraction layer is formed of ZrO2, HfO2, Ta2O5, Nb2O5, TeO2, MoO3, WO3, TiO2, SiN, SiON, SnO, ITO, Al2O3, Y2O3, AlN, MgO, or a mixture of two or more thereof. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Lin, also related to diffraction gratings on optical waveguides (see Abstract), teaches that suitable materials for forming a diffraction layer include, for example, ZrO2, HfO2, TiO2, SiN, and SiON (see paragraphs 0279-0280). Since these were known suitable materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and combine these materials, including as presently claimed, based on their suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 10: Modified Lee teaches the light guide element according to claim 9, as applied above. Lee fails to teach that the refractive index of the diffraction layer for the third wavelength is greater than a refractive index of the light guide structure for the third wavelength, and wherein a difference between the refractive index of the diffraction layer for the third wavelength and the refractive index of the light guide substrate for the third wavelength is 0.1 or less. However, Lin does teach that the refractive index of the diffraction layer is greater than the refractive index of the light guide substrate in order to cause the diffracted light to propagate in the substrate under TIR (see paragraph 0065). In selecting the materials for the light guide substrate and the diffraction layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select materials such that the refractive index of the diffraction layer is higher than the refractive index of the substrate at the third wavelength, since it was taught by Lin to enable TIR in the waveguide substrate. Modified Lee therefore discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim, as applied above, but does not disclose that the refractive index difference is less than 0.1. However, this refractive index difference is a result effective variable, since this difference affects the light being coupled into the waveguide substrate. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the refractive index difference between the diffraction layer and the light guide substrate for the third wavelength be 0.1 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0141130; hereinafter Lee) in view of Meng et al. (US 2019/0310456; hereinafter Meng).
Regarding claim 13: Lee teaches the light guide element according to claim 1, as applied above. Lee further teaches that the first diffraction grating has a grating pitch so that when light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, or the third wavelength is incident normal to the first diffraction grating from the light guide substrate, light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis or in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate for any wavelength of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength (see Fig. 2A-B). Lee fails to teach that the first diffraction grating is a two-axis diffraction grating, in which a unit grating is a rectangular grating. However, Meng, also related to waveguide displays having diffraction grating couplers (see abstract), teaches that input gratings can be one-dimensional (Figs. 7-9) or two-dimensional (Figs. 10-12), and that rectangular unit gratings are suitable for two-axis diffraction gratings (see paragraph 0062). Since Meng previously taught waveguide displays having two-axis gratings with rectangular unit gratings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Lee device by substituting the 1D input gratings for a 2D input grating. Doing so would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to improve light utilization efficiency (see paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 14: Lee teaches the light guide element according to claim 1, as applied above. Lee further teaches that the first diffraction grating has a grating pitch so that when light of any one of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength is incident normal to the first diffraction grating from the light guide substrate, light diffracted in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along an x-axis and in positive and negative one-dimensional directions along a y-axis total internal reflection is guided to be totally internally reflected in the light guide substrate for any wavelength of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength (see Fig. 4). Lee fails to teach that the first diffraction grating is a two-axis diffraction grating, in which a unit grating is a rectangular grating. However, Meng, also related to waveguide displays having diffraction grating couplers (see abstract), teaches that input gratings can be one-dimensional (Figs. 7-9) or two-dimensional (Figs. 10-12), and that rectangular unit gratings are suitable for two-axis diffraction gratings (). Since Meng previously taught waveguide displays having two-axis gratings with rectangular unit gratings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Lee device by substituting the 1D input gratings for a 2D input grating. Doing so would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to improve light utilization efficiency (see paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874