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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 3/20/26 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 32 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
A) display system species comprising the ridges formed from same material as the encapsulant (claim(s) 11-19);
B) display system species comprising the ridges formed from a different
material from the encapsulant (claim(s) 32).
The species are independent or distinct because of their mutually exclusive characteristics or features. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, No claim(s) is(are) generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention below, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 32 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11,25-27,30,36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng (US 20240069256).
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 are the same”):
a blazed grating that comprises ridges formed from a first material (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 formed from a second material that has a different refractive index (by default, so as to be a grating for 31) 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, wherein the encapsulant is also formed from the first material (32 in Fig. 11, [116], “the material of the second relief structure 32 is titanium dioxide”).
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 claims 26-27,37, mutatis mutandis, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 11,25 rejections above.
Regarding claim 30, Deng further teaches The display system defined in claim 26, wherein the second material has a refractive index greater than 1.5 ([10], “between 1.5 and 2.8”).
Regarding claim 36, Deng further teaches The display system defined in claim 26, wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the image light via total internal reflection in a direction and wherein a thickness of the coating over the ridges changes in the direction (thickness of 34 in Fig. 11 changes horizontally which is the direction of propagation across the grating).
Regarding claim 38, 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
a surface relief grating structure (212) on the waveguide, comprising:
a blazed grating that comprises ridges formed from a material (31 in Fig. 11, [116], “a material of the first relief structure 31 ... may be titanium dioxide”);
a coating (34 in Fig. 11) over the ridges; and
an encapsulant (32 in Fig. 11) over the coating, wherein the encapsulant is formed from the material.
Regarding claim 39, 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 on a same side of 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 are the same”):
a blazed grating (31 in Fig. 11) that comprises ridges;
a coating (34 in Fig. 11) over the ridges; and
an encapsulant (32 in Fig. 11) that conforms to the coating.
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) 12,29,31,33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Colburn (CN 112313547, as evidenced by the translation).
Regarding claim 12, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, but does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the first material comprises silicon nitride.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Colburn teaches a first material comprises silicon nitride (1410 in Fig. 14).
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 first material comprises silicon nitride as taught by Colburn in the teaching of Deng for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 29, mutatis mutandis, Deng in view of Colburn further teaches the second material comprises silicon nitride
Regarding claim 31, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 26, but does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 26, further comprising:
a substrate interposed between the waveguide and the blazed grating.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Colburn teaches a substrate (920) interposed between a waveguide (910) and a blazed grating (930).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a substrate interposed between the waveguide and the blazed grating as taught by Colburn in the teaching of Deng for the purposes of attaching the grating to the waveguide.
Regarding claim 33, Deng in view of Colburn teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 31, nut does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 31, wherein the substrate has a thickness that is less than 100 nanometers.
However thickness is “a result-effective variable” because it confers the size and the weight. And 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 substrate has a thickness that is less than 100 nanometers, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the substrate has a thickness that is less than 100 nanometers for the purposes of having a compact product.
Claim(s) 15,34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Peroz (US 20180059297).
Regarding claim 15, Deng 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 for the purposes of improving image quality.
Regarding claim 34, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 26, but does not explicitly teach The display system defined in claim 26, wherein at least one ridge of the ridges has a non-linear edge.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Peroz teaches at least one ridge of the ridges has a non-linear edge (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 at least one ridge of the ridges has a non-linear edge as taught by Peroz in the teaching of Deng for the purposes of improving image quality.
Claim(s) 16,28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng.
Regarding claim 16, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, but does not teach The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the second material comprises titanium dioxide.
The difference between the claimed invention is nano-imprint-lithography resist for the second material is switched with titanium dioxide.
However Deng also teaches nano-imprint-lithography resist for a material is switched with titanium dioxide ([14], “nano-imprint-lithography resist or titanium dioxide”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have nano-imprint-lithography resist for the second material is switched with titanium dioxide as further taught by Deng in the teaching of Deng for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 28, mutatis mutandis, the modified Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16 rejection above.
Claim(s) 11,13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calafiore (US 20200158943) in view of Deng.
Regarding claim 11, Calafiore teaches (Figs. 3,6,) A display system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a waveguide (602) configured to propagate image light via total internal reflection; and
at least one surface relief grating structure (between 662 and 641) at the waveguide, wherein the at least one surface relief grating structure comprises:
a blazed grating that comprises ridges formed from a first material (312 in Fig. 3);
a coating over the ridges formed from a second material that has a different refractive index (318) than the first material ([32], “silicon nitride”); and
an encapsulant that conforms to the ridges and the coating, wherein the encapsulant is also formed from the first material (324, [36], “324 has a same refractive index e.g. is formed of a same material as the array of ridges 312”).
Calafiore does not teach the at least one surface relief grating structure includes first and second surface relief grating structures.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Deng teaches at least one surface relief grating structure includes first and second surface relief grating structures (212,213 in Fig. 4).
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 at least one surface relief grating structure includes first and second surface relief grating structures as taught by Deng in the teaching of Calafiore for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 13, Calafiore further teaches The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the first material comprises silicon dioxide ([35], “silicon oxide...over-coat...”).
Regarding claim 14, Calafiore further teaches The display system defined in claim 11, wherein the first material has a first refractive index, wherein the second material has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first and second refractive indices is greater than 0.3 (silicon nitride~2, silicon oxide, i.e., SiO2~1.5).
Claim(s) 17,35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Waldern (US 12399326).
Regarding claim 17, Deng teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 11, but does not teach The display system defined in claim 11, wherein each one of the first and second surface relief grating structures 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 for the purposes of improving transmission.
Regarding claim 35, mutatis mutandis, Deng in view of Waldern teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 17 rejection above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Waldern (US 12399326) and further in view of Malhotra (US 20210191180).
Regarding claim 18, Deng 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, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Malhotra teaches (Fig. 4) a waveguide (420) has first and second opposing sides, wherein the first surface relief grating structure (430) is formed on the first side of the waveguide, and wherein the second surface relief grating structure (440) 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 taught by Malhotra in the teaching of Deng 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 Waldern (US 12399326) and further in view of Malhotra (US 20210191180) and further in view of Waldern2 (US 20190113829).
Regarding claim 19, Deng in view of Waldern and further in view of Malhotra 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 Waldern and further in view of Malhotra 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 Waldern and further in view of Malhotra for the purposes of allowing misalignment between the input and output grating.
Conclusion
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