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 7/20/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The amended claims 11-19,25-31,33-40 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 11-19,25,39-40, drawn to product of display system comprising the coating over the ridges of the second surface relief grating structure comprises a second material different than the first material or the coating over the ridges of the second surface relief grating structure has a second reflectance different than the first reflectance, classified in G02B27/0944;
II. Claim(s) 26-31,33-37, drawn to product of display system comprising a thickness of the coating gradually changes from the first thickness to the second thickness in the edge portion, classified in G02B27/0944;
III. Claim(s) 38, drawn to product of display system comprising the surface relief grating structure has a planar surface that alternates between portions of the encapsulant and portions of the coating, classified in G02B27/0944;
IV. Originally presented claimed and elected claims 11-19 as filed on 1/8/24, drawn to product of display system comprising two surface relief grating structures with the encapsulant is also formed from the first material, classified in G02B27/0944.
There is no linking claim.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
The inventions are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive (related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention, MPEP806.05); and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect as described above. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
-the groups of invention require a different field of search (e.g. employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. However the amended claims have effectively canceled the originally presented invention, Applicant’s reply filed on 7/20/26 is considered as non-responsive. Upon discussion with Applicant during 6/16/26-8/20/26, Applicant appears to wish to stop pursuing the originally elected invention and switch to newly claimed inventions. In view of the above restriction requirement, Examiner has granted Applicant to elect one of Inventions I-III for further prosecution. Applicant elected Invention I, claims 11-19,25,39-40 on 8/20/26 is acknowledged.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 7/20/26 have been considered as follows.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejections.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 11-14,16,25,39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20240069256, of record) in view of Lee (US 20190064420).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Deng teaches (Abstract, Figs. 3-11,29) A display system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a waveguide (21) configured to propagate image light via total internal reflection; and
first (212) and second (213) surface relief grating structures (Figs. 5-6) at the waveguide, wherein each one of the first and second surface relief grating structures comprises ([97-], “structures of the in-coupling grating 212 and the out-coupling grating 213 may be different”):
a blazed grating that comprises ridges (31 in Fig. 11, [116] “a material of the first relief structure 31 ... may be titanium dioxide”, 31 has blazed angle and considered as blazed grating, also Applicant appears to define blazed grating as a special case of slanted grating in the instant Specification [108], “If desired, ridges may be included that have non-parallel sidewalls. For example, a blazed grating may be used in each SRG structure”);
a coating over the ridges, wherein the coating over the ridges of the first surface relief grating structure comprises a first material and wherein the coating over the ridges of the second surface relief grating structure comprises a second material different than the first material (34 in Fig. 11, [116], “The material of the intermediate layer 34 is nano-imprint-lithography resist”); and
an encapsulant that conforms to the ridges and the coating (32 or 33 in Fig. 11, Examiner notes either the coating or the ridges may be between the other two, and the coating and the ridges may be switched).
Deng does not teach the second material different than the first material. The difference between the claimed invention and Deng’s teaching is the coating for in-coupling grating is a metal material.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Lee teaches a coating for in-coupling grating is a metal material ([55], Fig. 4, “The reflective layer 116 may be formed of a metal material having high reflectance such as silver (Ag) or aluminum (Al)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating for in-coupling grating is a metal material as taught by Lee in the teaching of Deng for the purposes of improving in-coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, Deng further teaches The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the ridges are formed from a third material, wherein the first material has a different refractive index than the third material, wherein the second material has a different refractive index than the third material (by default, so as be gratings).
Deng in view of Lee does not explicitly teach the encapsulant are formed from the third material.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the encapsulant are formed from the third material would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices (so 33 as the encapsulant having same material as the ridges).
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Deng in view of Lee by having the encapsulant are formed from the third material for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 12, but does not explicitly teach the display system defined in claim 12, wherein the third material comprises silicon nitride or silicon dioxide and wherein the first material comprises titanium dioxide.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the third material comprises silicon nitride or silicon dioxide and wherein the first material comprises titanium dioxide would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of the modified Deng in view of Lee by having the third material comprises silicon nitride or silicon dioxide and wherein the first material comprises titanium dioxide for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 12, but does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 12, wherein the first material has a first refractive index, wherein the third material has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first and second refractive indices is greater than 0.3.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the first material has a first refractive index, wherein the third material has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first and second refractive indices is greater than 0.3 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of the modified Deng in view of Lee by having the first material has a first refractive index, wherein the third material has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first and second refractive indices is greater than 0.3 for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 16, Deng further teaches the coating is in direct contact with the ridges or encapsulant (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 25, Deng further teaches The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the first and second surface relief grating structures are formed on a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39, mutatis mutandis, Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11 rejection above (not as part of the rejection, Examiner notes Lee in view of Deng also teaches claim 39).
Regarding claim 40, Deng further teaches The display system defined in claim 39, wherein the coating is in direct contact with the ridges and the encapsulant (Fig. 11).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Peroz (US 20180059297, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, but does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the ridges are wavy ridges.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Peroz teaches ridges are wavy ridges (4004A in Fig. 40A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ridges are wavy ridges as taught by Peroz in the teaching of Deng in view of Lee for the purposes of improving image quality.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern (US 12399326, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Deng in view of Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, but does not teach The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the first or second surface relief grating structure further comprises:
an anti-reflective coating formed over the encapsulant.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Waldern teaches an anti-reflective coating formed over a grating structure (col. 22, line 34, “an anti-reflection coating”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an anti-reflective coating formed over the encapsulant (being part of grating structure) as taught by Waldern in the teaching of Deng in view of Lee for the purposes of improving transmission.
Regarding claim 18, Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 17, and does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 17, wherein the waveguide has first and second opposing sides, wherein the first surface relief grating structure is formed on the first side of the waveguide, and wherein the second surface relief grating structure is formed on the second side of the waveguide.
However, Lee further teaches (Fig. 8) a waveguide (111) has first and second opposing sides, wherein the first surface relief grating structure (112) is formed on the first side of the waveguide, and wherein the second surface relief grating structure (113) is formed on the second side of the waveguide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waveguide has first and second opposing sides, wherein the first surface relief grating structure is formed on the first side of the waveguide, and wherein the second surface relief grating structure is formed on the second side of the waveguide as further taught by Lee in the teaching of Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern for the purposes of design choices.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern and even further in view of Waldern2 (US 20190113829, of record).
Regarding claim 19, Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 18, but does not teach The display system defined in claim 18, wherein the ridges of the first surface relief grating structure are at a non-zero, non-orthogonal angle relative to the ridges of the second surface relief grating structure.
The difference between the claimed invention and Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern is the grating vectors of the input and the output gratings are at a non-zero, non-orthogonal angle.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Waldern2 teaches grating vectors of input and output gratings are at a non-zero, non-orthogonal angle ([52], “non-orthogonal input, fold, and output grating vector”, Waldern2 does not mention the vectors are at a zero angle, Examiner considers it more likely than not the vectors are at a non-zero angle as zero angle is a very specific value and would have been pointed out if so).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the grating vectors of the input and the output gratings are at a non-zero, non-orthogonal angle as taught by Waldern2 in the teaching of Deng in view of Lee and further in view of Waldern for the purposes of allowing misalignment between the input and output grating.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights