DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach a cover on the edge that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface because Ofir’s thin layer is disposed on the upper surface of the substrate rather than on the edge surface. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach a third substrate having a fifth lateral surface mounted to the fourth lateral surface of the second substrate because Abobitz does not show the right hand side waveguide to be mounted to any lateral surface, but rather to the edge of the waveguide apparati. Applicant agues the prior art fails to teach the third edge extends from the fifth lateral surface at an angle that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second edges and that is non-perpendicular with respect to the fifth lateral surface because the modification of Abovitz in view of Kamiya still depicts the right hand side waveguide to be mounted to the edge of the waveguide apparati, and furthermore, if one of the waveguide apparati were modified to have a slanted edge, then air would be introduced between the two components of Abovitz. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach a cover on the edge that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface because Ofir’s thin layer is disposed on the upper surface of the substrate rather than on the edge surface, Examiner notes that the Ofir’s thin layer is viewed to be at least (emphasis added) indirectly disposed on the edge surface. Applicant can overcome this interpretation and the rejection of record by including claim language such as “a cover directly on the edge that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface”.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach a third substrate having a fifth lateral surface mounted to the fourth lateral surface of the second substrate because Abobitz does not show the right hand side waveguide to be mounted to any lateral surface, but rather to the edge of the waveguide apparati, Examiner notes that the fifth lateral surface is viewed to at least (emphasis added) indirectly be mounted to the lateral surface.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach the third edge extends from the fifth lateral surface at an angle that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second edges and that is non-perpendicular with respect to the fifth lateral surface because the modification of Abovitz in view of Kamiya still depicts the right hand side waveguide to be mounted to the edge of the waveguide apparati, and furthermore, if one of the waveguide apparati were modified to have a slanted edge, then air would be introduced between the two components of Abovitz, Examiner notes that the modification is viewed to be modifying Abovitz’s input surface to be slanted, not modifying the edge of the waveguide apparati to be slanted. With this modification in mind, Examiner notes that the right hand side waveguide is at least (emphasis added) indirectly mounted to the lateral surface.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the prior art teaches the limitations of the independent claims.
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, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (2017/0371155, of record) in view of Ofir et al. (2017/0363799, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya discloses an electronic device (Figure 9) comprising: a projector configured to output light (Ls, symbol light); a substrate (60', light guide) having a first lateral surface (63a, plane), a second lateral surface parallel to the first lateral surface (63b, plane), and an edge that couples the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface (61', plane), wherein the edge extends at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to the first lateral surface (Figure 9 depicts 61', plane, extends at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to 63a, plane), the substrate is configured to receive the light through the edge ([0043]; light from 22, display, enters through 61', plane), and the substrate is configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface ([0043] teaches light is reflected between 63a, plane, and 63b, plane, due to total internal reflection); and an optical coupler configured to couple the light out of the substrate through the first lateral surface (62, reflector; [0045, 0047]).
Kamiya fails to teach a cover on the edge that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface. Kamiya and Ofir are related because both teach an electronic device.
Ofir teaches an electronic device comprising a cover (at least Figure 8(c),172, thin layer) on the edge (172, thin layer is disposed at least indirectly on the slanted surface) that extends from the first lateral surface (top surface of 174, final LOE) to the second lateral surface (bottom surface of 174, final LOE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Ofir and provide a cover on the edge that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface. Doing so would allow for improved mechanical durability.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the optical coupler is disposed in the substrate (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the optical coupler comprises a louvered mirror (62, reflector, is viewed to be a louvered mirror).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the substrate has an additional edge opposite the edge, the additional edge couples the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface, and the additional edge extends perpendicular to the first and second lateral surfaces (right hand side vertical plane that connects 63a, plane, and 63b, plane).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (2017/0371155, of record) in view of Ofir et al. (2017/0363799, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukawa et al. (2006/0228073, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms configured to diffract the light out of the substrate. Kamiya and Mukawa are related because both teach an electronic device.
Mukawa teaches an electronic device wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms configured to diffract the light out of the substrate (at least Figure 9, 14, first reflection volume hologram grating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Mukawa and provide wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms configured to diffract the light out of the substrate. Doing so would allow for improved efficiency in diffraction and reflection for outcoupling the propagated light.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (2017/0371155, of record) in view of Ofir et al. (2017/0363799, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abovitz et al. (2015/0309263, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach an additional substrate, wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the second lateral surface of the substrate, a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface, and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge. Kamiya and Abovitz are related because both teach an electronic device.
Abovitz teaches an electronic device comprising: an additional substrate (Figure 8, 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the second lateral surface of the substrate (bottom surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus, is mounted to the top surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus), a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface (top surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge (right hand side vertical surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Abovitz and provide an additional substrate, wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the second lateral surface of the substrate, a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface, and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge. Doing so would allow for displaying images at multiple viewing distances to represent volumetric 3D objects.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kamiya discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach an additional substrate, wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the first lateral surface of the substrate, a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface, and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge. Kamiya and Abovitz are related because both teach an electronic device.
Abovitz teaches an electronic device comprising: an additional substrate (Figure 8, 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the first lateral surface of the substrate (bottom surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus, is indirectly mounted to the bottom surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus), a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface (top surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge (right hand side vertical surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Abovitz and provide an additional substrate, wherein the additional substrate has a third lateral surface mounted to the first lateral surface of the substrate, a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface, and an additional edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface and that is co-planar with the edge. Doing so would allow for displaying images at multiple viewing distances to represent volumetric 3D objects.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abovitz et al. (2015/0309263, of record) in view of Kamiya (2017/0371155, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Abovitz discloses an electronic device (Figure 8, 800, optical system) comprising: a projector configured to output light (810, ray); a first substrate (802d, planar waveguide apparatus) having a first lateral surface (bottom surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus), a second lateral surface parallel to the first lateral surface (top surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus), and a first edge that couples the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface (right hand side vertical surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus); a second substrate (802c, planar waveguide apparatus) having a third lateral surface mounted to the second lateral surface of the first substrate (bottom surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus, is mounted to the top surface of 802d, planar waveguide apparatus), having a fourth lateral surface parallel to the third lateral surface (top surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), and having a second edge that couples the third lateral surface to the fourth lateral surface (right hand side vertical surface of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus), wherein the first edge is coplanar with the second edge (right hand side vertical surfaces of 802d and 802c, planar waveguide apparati, are coplanar); and a third substrate (right hand side waveguide positioned vertically that receives light from the source and outcouples the light to 802a-802d, planar waveguide apparati) having a fifth lateral surface mounted to the fourth lateral surface of the second substrate (left hand vertical surface of the right hand side waveguide), having a sixth lateral surface parallel to the fifth lateral surface (right hand side vertical surface of the right hand side waveguide), and having a third edge that couples the fifth lateral surface to the sixth lateral surface (bottom surface of the right hand side waveguide positioned vertically), the third substrate is configured to receive the light through the third edge (Figure 8), and the third substrate is configured to transmit the light into the second substrate through the fifth lateral surface (Figure 8).
Abovitz fails to teach wherein the third edge extends from the fifth lateral surface at an angle that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second edges and that is non-perpendicular with respect to the fifth lateral surface. Abovitz and Kamiya are related because both teach an electronic device.
Kamiya teaches an electronic device wherein the third edge extends from the fifth lateral surface at an angle that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second edges and that is non-perpendicular with respect to the fifth lateral surface (Figure 9, 61', plane).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Abovitz to incorporate the teachings of Kamiya and provide wherein the third edge extends from the fifth lateral surface at an angle that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second edges and that is non-perpendicular with respect to the fifth lateral surface. Doing so would allow for a reduction of size of the device.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Abovitz discloses the electronic device of claim 15, further comprising: an optical coupler configured to couple the light out of the second substrate (2, DOE, of 802c, planar waveguide apparatus).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Abovitz discloses the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the second substrate is configured to transmit the light into the first substrate (Figure 8) and wherein the electronic device further comprises: an optical coupler configured to couple the light out of the first substrate (2, DOE, produces 810, ray).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Abovitz discloses the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the second substrate is configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection (at least [0014]; for exemplary purposes, the light in Figure 8 is being shown to propagate the other substrates via total internal reflection).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abovitz et al. (2015/0309263, of record) in view of Kamiya (2017/0371155, of record), as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Mukawa et al. (2006/0228073, of record).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Abovitz discloses the electronic device of claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms. The modified Abovitz and Mukawa are related because both teach an electronic device.
Mukawa teaches an electronic device wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms (at least Figure 9, 14, first reflection volume hologram grating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Mukawa and provide wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms. Doing so would allow for improved efficiency in diffraction and reflection for outcoupling the propagated light.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Abovitz discloses the electronic device of claim 18, but fails to teach wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms. The modified Abovitz and Mukawa are related because both teach an electronic device.
Mukawa teaches an electronic device wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms (at least Figure 9, 14, first reflection volume hologram grating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kamiya to incorporate the teachings of Mukawa and provide wherein the optical coupler comprises a set of volume holograms. Doing so would allow for improved efficiency in diffraction and reflection for outcoupling the propagated light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the third edge is parallel to the first and second edges, along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 9 in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. Claim 11, 13, and 14 are dependent on claim 9, and are therefore allowable.
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights