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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application Continuation of PCT/CN2022/104451, filed 07/07/2022 that claims foreign priority to CN 202110790671.2, filed 07/13/2021 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, of record, see IDS dated 01/16/2025) US 20200241353 A1 in view of Shipton et al. (hereafter Shipton, of record) US 20190339447 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) an optical display element (grating device 30 for screen and display, see Abstract, paragraphs [06-40, 57-62,73-75,80-82, 87-96]), comprising:
a plurality of stripes (plurality of meta-grating patterns having curved shape 34 of diffraction grating, abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80, 87, e.g. Figs. 1-3),
wherein the plurality of stripes are arc-shaped and have a same bending direction (i.e. as 34 are arc-shaped with same bending direction as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]) and the plurality of stripes are configured to reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged (i.e. as operating/incident light L1 e.g. from light source 42 is reflected from 34 meta-grating patterns, and the light L1 is imaged to the user 40, paragraphs [57-62,73-78], note that limitations for supplying operating light and imaging operating light are directed to other elements and operations external to the display element and are treated as optional to the extent of recited structures, it is held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding stripes that can reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected. See MPEP § 2114.), and wherein for
each stripe of the plurality of stripes a distance between adjacent resonance stripes is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
But Lee is silent that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern 34 of plurality of meta-diffraction patterns 34 paragraphs [57-62) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, where the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (where the limitations for generating a resonance effect by presumably supplying operating light are directed to other elements and operations external to the display element and are treated as optional to the extent of recited structures, see similar note above, MPEP § 2114), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (however, as noted above Lee teaches that dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
However, Shipton teaches in the same field of invention of diffraction gratings for beam redirection (and applied to display, HMD, see Figs. 1-17, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 35-49, 50,54-58,62,63-73, 84-88]) and further teaches that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern blocks of plurality of stripes i.e. diffraction blocks/arrays 601,602, 622, 621,641,642 of grating structure(s) e.g. 600A-D,620 see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (i.e. having resonant nanoparticles 611,612, in blocks 621, 641,642 generating resonant effect, resonance occurring at frequency of external optical field is close to a resonant frequency, see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8, and providing enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section due to nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna size and shape, enables fine tuning of such resonance enabling one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, and provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, e.g. paragraphs [63-69]), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as resonant nanoparticles have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, see e.g. [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each of the plurality of stripes i.e. curved meta-grating patterns of diffraction grating of Lee to include plurality of resonant elements/nanoparticles blocks according to teachings of Shipton in order to provide enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section with nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna/nanoparticle size and shape, enabling fine tuning of resonance and providing one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, as well as to provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, (see Shipton e.g. paragraphs [63-69]).
Furthermore, as a result of the combination, the Lee-Shipton combination and teaches and renders obvious that the each of the plurality of stripes includes resonant elements where distance the between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (as resonant elements have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, per Shipton as noted above, [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67], and since Lee requires that modification of stripes to include resonant elements which now form each meta-diffraction pattern, and the dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
In regard to independent claim 11, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) an optical device (e.g. display, screen e.g. AR, VR, with grating device, diffraction plate 30, 58 for such screen and display, see Abstract, paragraphs [06-40, 57-62,73-82, 87-96]), wherein the optical device (display) comprises:
an optical projection system (display light source/projection unit 42, 72, 102/100, 84/90, see paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12); and an optical display element (grating device 30 for screen and display, see Abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80-82, 87-96]),
wherein the optical display element (grating device 30,58) comprises a plurality of stripes (plurality of meta-grating patterns having curved shape 34 of diffraction grating, abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80, 87, e.g. Figs. 1-3),
wherein the plurality of stripes are arc-shaped and have a same bending direction (i.e. as 34 are arc-shaped with same bending direction as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]) and the plurality of stripes are configured to reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged (i.e. as operating light L1 e.g. from light source 42 is reflected from 34 meta-grating patterns, and the light L1 is imaged to the user 40, paragraphs [57-62,73-78], and
wherein the optical projection system is configured to generate operating light (display light source/projection unit 42, 72, 102/100, 84/90, generated operating light e.g. L1, see paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12), and emit the operating light to the optical display element (L1 emitted towards 30,58, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12; and the optical display element is configured to reflect the operating light (i.e. as 30,58 reflects, diffracts L1 light, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12), and wherein for
each stripe of the plurality of stripes a distance between adjacent resonance stripes is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
But Lee is silent that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern 34 of plurality of meta-diffraction patterns 34 paragraphs [57-62) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements, and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (however, as noted above Lee teaches that dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
However, Shipton teaches in the same field of invention of diffraction gratings for beam redirection (and applied to display, HMD, see Figs. 1-17, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 35-49, 50,54-58,62,63-73, 84-88]) and further teaches that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern blocks of plurality of stripes i.e. diffraction blocks/arrays 601,602, 622, 621,641,642 of grating structure(s) e.g. 600A-D,620 see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (i.e. having resonant nanoparticles 611,612, generating resonant effect, resonance occurring at frequency of external optical field is close to a resonant frequency, see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8, and providing enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section due to nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna size and shape, enables fine tuning of such resonance enabling one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, and provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, e.g. paragraphs [63-69]), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as resonant nanoparticles have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, see e.g. [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each of the plurality of stripes i.e. curved meta-grating patterns of diffraction grating of Lee to include plurality of resonant elements/nanoparticles according to teachings of Shipton in order to provide enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section with nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna/nanoparticle size and shape, enabling fine tuning of resonance and providing one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, as well as to provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, (see Shipton e.g. paragraphs [63-69]).
Furthermore, as a result of the combination, the Lee-Shipton combination and teaches and renders obvious that the each of the plurality of stripes includes resonant elements where distance the between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (as resonant elements have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, per Shipton as noted above, [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67], and since Lee requires that modification of stripes to include resonant elements which now form each meta-diffraction pattern, and the dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that the bending direction of the plurality of stripes is parallel to a surface of the optical display element (i.e. as 34 have bending direction parallel to a surface of 30 as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a curvature radius of at least one stripe of the plurality of stripes is different from curvature radiuses of other stripes of the plurality of stripes (i.e. as curvature of one pattern 34 mas different curvature radius from other patterns 34, as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that the curvature radiuses of the plurality of stripes change in one direction (i.e. as curvature radiuses of the plurality patterns 34 change in one direction, as depicted in Fig. 1, see paragraphs [57-58,67,101]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that projections of the curvature radiuses of the plurality of stripes gradually increase on the optical display element in an incident direction of the operating light (i.e. as curvature radiuses of the plurality patterns 34 increase in direction of incident operating light, as depicted in Fig. 1, see paragraphs [57-58,67]; note that limitations for supplying incident operating light in some arbitrary direction are directed to other elements and operations external to the display element and are treated as optional to the extent of recited structures, see notes in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a minimum curvature radius of the plurality of stripes is not less than 100 μm (i.e. given that dimension e.g. height, width, pitch, of each meta-diffraction pattern 34 may be less than a wavelength of light and the relative size of curved pattern 34 of grating device 30, curvature radius of pattern 34 is the above range, as depicted in Fig. 1, see paragraphs [20,31,40, 57-59,67]). In the alternative that Lee teaches the invention except that minimum curvature radius of the plurality of stripes is not less than 100 μm, although it is close to such value (see paragraphs [20,31,40, 57-59,67], and Fig. 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and control the curvature radius of curved meta-diffraction patterns of diffraction device of Lee to be in the above range, in order to manufacture grating device with pattern curvature considering the wavelength of light used and required/desired traveling direction of incident light so that the incident light travels to the user (see e.g. paragraphs [57-58]), and 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to control the curvature radius of curved meta-diffraction patterns of diffraction device of Lee to be in the above range, in order to manufacture grating device with pattern curvature considering the wavelength of light used and required/desired traveling direction of incident light so that the incident light travels to the user (see e.g. paragraphs [57-58]), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a distance between at least one pair of adjacent stripes of the plurality of stripes is different from distances between other adjacent stripes of the plurality of stripes (i.e. given that distance or pitch P1 between two patterns 34 is different than pitch P2 or P3 between other adjacent diffractive patterns, as depicted in Figs. 1,3-5, paragraphs [57-58, 65]).
Regarding claim 8, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that distances between adjacent stripes of the plurality of stripes change in one direction (i.e. given that distance or pitch P1 between patterns 34 can change in one direction e.g. P2 or P3, as depicted in Figs. 1,3-5, paragraphs [57-58, 65]).
Regarding claim 9, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that projections of the distances between the adjacent stripes of the plurality of stripes gradually decrease on the optical display element in an incident direction of the operating light (i.e. as pitch decreases from source 42 in direction projection of incident light direction e.g. from P1 to P3, as depicted in Figs. 1,3-5, paragraphs [57-58, 65]).
Regarding claim 10, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a distance between two adjacent stripes of the plurality of stripes is greater than or equal to 1/4 of an operating-light wavelength and less than 10 times the operating-light wavelength (i.e. as pitch P between patterns 34 is less than wavelength of incident operating light , paragraphs [31, 57-59, 101]).
Regarding claim 12, the Lee-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a projection of the optical projection system on the optical display element is in a bending direction of the plurality of stripes (i.e. as projected light L1 is in bending direction of curved diffractive patterns 34, paragraphs [57-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12), and a curvature-radius direction of at least one stripe of the plurality of stripes points to the projection of the optical projection system on the optical display element (i.e. given the curvature radius and center of curvature of diffractive pattern 34 and position of light source/projection unit 42, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, of record, see IDS dated 01/16/2025) US 20200241353 A1 in view of Shipton et al. (hereafter Shipton) US 20190339447 A1 and further in view Singh et al. (hereafter Singh) US 20240198578 A1.
In regard to independent claim 17, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) a display apparatus (display apparatus, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-40, 57-62,73-82, 87-96), comprising: an optical device (e.g. display has screen e.g. AR, VR, with grating device, diffraction plate 30, 58 for such screen and display, see abstract, paragraphs [06-40, 57-62,73-82, 87-96]), wherein the optical device (display) comprises:
an optical projection system (display light source/projection unit 42, 72, 102/100, 84/90, see paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12); and an optical display element (grating device 30 for screen and display, see Abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80-82, 87-96]),
wherein the optical display element (grating device 30,58) comprises a plurality of stripes (plurality of meta-grating patterns having curved shape 34 of diffraction grating, abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80, 87, e.g. Figs. 1-3),
wherein the plurality of stripes are arc-shaped and have a same bending direction (i.e. as 34 are arc-shaped with same bending direction as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]) and the plurality of stripes are configured to reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged (i.e. as operating light L1 e.g. from light source 42 is reflected from 34 meta-grating patterns, and the light L1 is imaged to the user 40, paragraphs [57-62,73-78], wherein
each stripe of the plurality of stripes a distance between adjacent resonance stripes is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]), and
wherein the optical projection system is configured to generate operating light (display light source/projection unit 42, 72, 102/100, 84/90, generated operating light e.g. L1, see paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12), and emit the operating light to the optical display element (L1 emitted towards 30,58, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12; and the optical display element is configured to reflect the operating light (i.e. as 30,58 reflects, diffracts L1 light, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12).
But Lee is silent that the display apparatus is for a vehicle comprising the display apparatus (however, Lee notes that changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, e.g. abstract, paragraphs [02,05,104]), and that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern 34 of plurality of meta-diffraction patterns 34 paragraphs [57-62) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements, and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (however, as noted above Lee teaches that dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
However, Singh teaches in the same field of invention of Methods for creating a diffractive pattern on a curved surface used in mixed reality device displays (see Figs. 1-6, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-18, 55-60, 67-72, 85-92], where ME, VR or AR displays use optical diffractive optical element elements for controlling the flow of image wise modulated light, and is implemented as head mounted system e.g. 200, sunglasses or in vehicles, e.g. paragraphs [55-60, 67-72, 85-92]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and scale the display, screen with grating device and diffraction plate of Lee to be used in vehicle e.g. implemented in windshield according to teachings of Singh in order to provide augmented or mixed reality display in the vehicle (see paragraphs [67-72, 85-88]).
However, Shipton teaches in the same field of invention of diffraction gratings for beam redirection (and applied to display, HMD, see Figs. 1-17, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 35-49, 50,54-58,62,63-73, 84-88]) and further teaches that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern blocks of plurality of stripes i.e. diffraction blocks/arrays 601,602, 622, 621,641,642 of grating structure(s) e.g. 600A-D,620 see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (i.e. having resonant nanoparticles 611,612, generating resonant effect, resonance occurring at frequency of external optical field is close to a resonant frequency, see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8, and providing enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section due to nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna size and shape, enables fine tuning of such resonance enabling one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, and provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, e.g. paragraphs [63-69]), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as resonant nanoparticles have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, see e.g. [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each of the plurality of stripes i.e. curved meta-grating patterns of diffraction grating of Lee to include plurality of resonant elements/nanoparticles according to teachings of Shipton in order to provide enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section with nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna/nanoparticle size and shape, enabling fine tuning of resonance and providing one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, as well as to provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, (see Shipton e.g. paragraphs [63-69]).
Furthermore, as a result of the combination, the Lee-Shipton combination and teaches and renders obvious that the each of the plurality of stripes includes resonant elements where distance the between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (as resonant elements have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, per Shipton as noted above, [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67], and since Lee requires that modification of stripes to include resonant elements which now form each meta-diffraction pattern, and the dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
Regarding claim 18, the Lee-Singh-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a projection of the optical projection system on the optical display element is in a bending direction of the plurality of stripes (i.e. as projected light L1 is in bending direction of curved diffractive patterns 34, paragraphs [57-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12), and a curvature-radius direction of at least one stripe of the plurality of stripes points to the projection of the optical projection system on the optical display element (i.e. given the curvature radius and center of curvature of diffractive pattern 34 and position of light source/projection unit 42, paragraphs [61-67, 73-82, 87-96], Figs. 2, 7-12).
Regarding claim 19, the Lee-Singh-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that the bending direction of the plurality of stripes is parallel to a surface of the optical display element (i.e. as 34 have bending direction parallel to a surface of 30 as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]).
Regarding claims 20, the Lee-Singh-Shipton combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a curvature radius of at least one stripe of the plurality of stripes is different from curvature radiuses of other stripes of the plurality of stripes (i.e. as curvature of one pattern 34 mas different curvature radius from other patterns 34, as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 02/17/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and as applied to claims 11 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the remarks, that the cited prior art of Lee and Shipton does not disclose the new amended feature of claim 1, namely that “a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light”, because Shipton does not shown to discuss specifically the "distance" between adjacent first embedded nanoparticles 611 or adjacent second embedded nanoparticles 612. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above, issue as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Lee teaches most and in combination with Shipton teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-18) an optical display element (grating device 30 for screen and display, see Abstract, paragraphs [06-40, 57-62,73-75,80-82, 87-96]), comprising:
a plurality of stripes (plurality of meta-grating patterns having curved shape 34 of diffraction grating, abstract, paragraphs [57-62,73-75,80, 87, e.g. Figs. 1-3),
wherein the plurality of stripes are arc-shaped and have a same bending direction (i.e. as 34 are arc-shaped with same bending direction as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [57-62,73-75]) and the plurality of stripes are configured to reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged (i.e. as operating/incident light L1 e.g. from light source 42 is reflected from 34 meta-grating patterns, and the light L1 is imaged to the user 40, paragraphs [57-62,73-78], note that limitations for supplying operating light and imaging operating light are directed to other elements and operations external to the display element and are treated as optional to the extent of recited structures, it is held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding stripes that can reflect operating light of the optical display element, so that the operating light is imaged. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected. See MPEP § 2114.), and wherein for
each stripe of the plurality of stripes a distance between adjacent resonance stripes is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
But Lee is silent that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern 34 of plurality of meta-diffraction patterns 34 paragraphs [57-62) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, where the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (where the limitations for generating a resonance effect by presumably supplying operating light are directed to other elements and operations external to the display element and are treated as optional to the extent of recited structures, see similar note above, MPEP § 2114), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (however, as noted above Lee teaches that dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
However, Shipton teaches in the same field of invention of diffraction gratings for beam redirection (and applied to display, HMD, see Figs. 1-17, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 35-49, 50,54-58,62,63-73, 84-88]) and further teaches that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern blocks of plurality of stripes i.e. diffraction blocks/arrays 601,602, 622, 621,641,642 of grating structure(s) e.g. 600A-D,620 see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (i.e. having resonant nanoparticles 611,612, in blocks 621, 641,642 generating resonant effect, resonance occurring at frequency of external optical field is close to a resonant frequency, see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8, and providing enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section due to nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna size and shape, enables fine tuning of such resonance enabling one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, and provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, e.g. paragraphs [63-69]), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as resonant nanoparticles have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, see e.g. [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each of the plurality of stripes i.e. curved meta-grating patterns of diffraction grating of Lee to include plurality of resonant elements/nanoparticles blocks according to teachings of Shipton in order to provide enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section with nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna/nanoparticle size and shape, enabling fine tuning of resonance and providing one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, as well as to provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, (see Shipton e.g. paragraphs [63-69]).
Furthermore, as a result of the combination, the Lee-Shipton combination and teaches and renders obvious that the each of the plurality of stripes includes resonant elements where distance the between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (as resonant elements have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, per Shipton as noted above, [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67], and since Lee requires that modification of stripes to include resonant elements which now form each meta-diffraction pattern, and the dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
Specifically, although Lee is silent that that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light, it is noted that Lee teaches that dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
However, Shipton teaches in the same field of invention of diffraction gratings for beam redirection (and applied to display, HMD, see Figs. 1-17, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 35-49, 50,54-58,62,63-73, 84-88]) and further teaches that each stripe of the plurality of stripes (each pattern blocks of plurality of stripes i.e. diffraction blocks/arrays 601,602, 622, 621,641,642 of grating structure(s) e.g. 600A-D,620 see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8) comprises a plurality of resonance elements, and that the operating light generates a resonance effect in one or more resonance elements of the plurality of resonance elements (i.e. having resonant nanoparticles 611,612, in blocks 621, 641,642 generating resonant effect, resonance occurring at frequency of external optical field is close to a resonant frequency, see paragraphs [62-73], e.g. Figs. 6-8, and providing enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section due to nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna size and shape, enables fine tuning of such resonance enabling one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, and provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, e.g. paragraphs [63-69]), and that a distance between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (i.e. as resonant nanoparticles have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, see e.g. [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each of the plurality of stripes i.e. curved meta-grating patterns of diffraction grating of Lee to include plurality of resonant elements/nanoparticles blocks according to teachings of Shipton in order to provide enhancement of the light absorption and emission cross-section with nanoparticles, as this antenna resonant frequency depends on the antenna/nanoparticle size and shape, enabling fine tuning of resonance and providing one to engineer the wavelength and polarization sensitivity of the gratings formed by the nanoparticle sub-arrays, as well as to provide multi-wavelength resonance with different nanoparticles, (see Shipton e.g. paragraphs [63-69]).
In addition, as a result of the combination, the Lee-Shipton combination and teaches and renders obvious that the each of the plurality of stripes includes resonant elements where distance the between adjacent resonance elements of each stripe is less than or equal to two times a wavelength of the operating light (as resonant elements have nanometer size, e.g. few hundreds of nanometers, which is less than twice the operating wavelength of visible light e.g. R,G,B, which is close to or above 1 micron, per Shipton as noted above, [37,40-43, 53,56, 60-64, 67], and since Lee requires that modification of stripes to include resonant elements which now form each meta-diffraction pattern, and the dimension of each meta-diffraction pattern from among the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns is less than a wavelength of light incident to the plurality of meta-diffraction patterns, e.g. paragraphs [30,31,40,50,101]).
Additionally, it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
Therefore, the cited prior art of Lee and Shipton teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, including the limitations noted above.
The same responses also apply equally to claims 11 and 17.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872