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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “the SRG has a gradient lateral edge”. The phrase “gradient lateral edge” is not a term of art in the grating arts, and its meaning is not clear in the context of the claim. Does “edge” mean a line demarcating an outer limit of the SRG, or is it a region near the outer limit of the SRG, where the gradient is from the central region of the SRG toward the outer limit? From the description of Fig. 6 in paragraph 0043, it appears that “edge” can refer to a region near the outer limit/boundary of the SRG. This is confusing and should be clarified in the claim. Additionally, the phrase “gradient lateral edge” is unclear because it does not provide any information about what the “gradient” is. Is the SRG on an incline? Is there a gradient in the diffraction efficiency? For the purpose of examination, the gradient lateral edge is interpreted as a gradient in the diffraction efficiency near an outer limit/boundary of the SRG.
Regarding claims 2-12: Claims 2-12 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites “the second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region and a second region of the substrate”, “the first SRG and the second SRG have a first diffraction efficiency within a first region of the substrate” and “the substrate has a second diffraction efficiency within a second region of the substrate”. Are the first and second instances of “a first region” referring to the same first region or different first regions? Are the first and second instances of “a second region of the substrate” referring to the same second region or different second regions? What does it mean that the first SRG and the second SRG have a first diffraction efficiency within a first region? Is this a cumulative diffraction efficiency considering the effects of both gratings, given that they are overlapping, or do these SRGs each have the same diffraction efficiency? Additionally, is the substrate diffraction efficiency the cumulative diffraction efficiency of the substrate in the second region, including the diffraction by the first and second SRG in this region? Claim 19 also recites “the first SRG and the second SRG have a gradient diffraction efficiency within a third region of the substrate”, but claim 19 has not also recited that the first SRG and the second SRG overlap in the third region of the substrate. Are both the first SRG and the second SRG required to be present in the third region of the substrate?
Regarding claim 20: All of the above matters regarding claim 19 are made more confusing by the recitation of claim 20 that the second diffraction efficiency is zero. This suggests that there is no grating in the second region, since diffraction gratings inherently diffract light and create non-zero diffraction efficiency.
Examiner looked to the specification to clarify these matters and found that this configuration is not illustrated or described. The only mention of a second region and third region, apart from this claim itself, is in paragraph 0040, which appears to describe Fig. 4, a completely different configuration from what is claimed. For the sake of examination, claim 19 is understood to require: a waveguide, a substrate on the waveguide; a first surface relief grating (SRG) on the substrate; and a second SRG on the substrate, wherein the second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region, a third region, and a fourth region of the substrate, the first SRG is oriented non-parallel with respect to the second SRG, the first SRG and the second SRG have a first diffraction efficiency within the first region of the substrate, the substrate has a second diffraction efficiency within a second region of the substrate (since the diffraction efficiency is claimed to be zero in this region, it is understood that the first and second SRGs do not overlap the region; therefore, the first instance of “a second region of the substrate” is interpreted as “a fourth region of the substrate” and the second instance of “a second region of the substrate is understood to refer to a different region), the first SRG and the second SRG have a gradient diffraction efficiency within the third region of the substrate, the third region of the substrate laterally surrounds the first region of the substrate and laterally separates the first region of the substrate from the second region of the substrate, and the gradient diffraction efficiency decreases from the first diffraction efficiency at the first region to the second diffraction efficiency at the second region.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the overlapping first and second SRGs, the claimed first, second, and third regions of the substrate, and the gradient diffraction efficiency region laterally surrounding the peak diffraction efficiency location, the varying blaze angle, and the SRGs having both the varying duty cycle and the varying groove depth must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2023/0341684; hereinafter Yang ‘684).
Regarding claim 1: Yang ‘684 disclosesAn electronic device (Fig. 7, display apparatus 750, including pupil-replicating light guide 400 of Fig. 4, see paragraph 0044) comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 4, slab 102); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 4, grating layer 411); and a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate (Fig. 4, out-coupling grating 410 is a SRG), wherein the SRG has a gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4, non-uniform grating region is considered to be a gradient lateral edge).
Regarding claim 2: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: a coating on the SRG (Fig. 4, phase compensation layer 418), wherein the coating has a decreasing thickness across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 3: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has grooves with depths that decrease across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 4: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 3 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has a varying duty cycle across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this, as the groove width is shown to vary with respect to the spacing between adjacent grooves; additionally, see abstract).
Regarding claim 5: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 2 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has a varying duty cycle across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this, as the groove width is shown to vary with respect to the spacing between adjacent grooves; additionally, see abstract).
Regarding claim 6: Yang ‘684 discloses The electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has a varying duty cycle across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this, as the groove width is shown to vary with respect to the spacing between adjacent grooves; additionally, see abstract).
Regarding claim 7: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 6 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has grooves with depths that decrease across the gradient lateral edge (Fig. 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 8: Yang ‘684 disclosesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has grooves with depths that decrease across a gradient lateral edge (as applied above).
Regarding claim 13: Yang ‘684 disclosesAn electronic device (Fig. 7, display apparatus 750, including pupil-replicating light guide 400 of Fig. 4, see paragraph 0044) comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 4, slab 102); an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 1, input coupler 104); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 4, grating layer 411); and a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate and configured to redirect the light coupled into the waveguide by the input coupler (Fig. 4, grating 410), wherein the SRG includesa central region (Fig. 4, the right side of the drawing is considered to represent a central region), and a peripheral region (Fig. 4, left side of non-uniform grating region) that laterally separates the central region from a non-diffractive portion (Fig. 4, non-grating region) of the substrate, the peripheral region having a diffraction efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate (see paragraph 0035).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0341684; hereinafter Yang ‘684) in view of Popovich et al. (US 2022/0283377; hereinafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 9: Yang ‘684 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. Yang ‘684 further discloses that the device includes an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 1, input coupler 104) and an output coupler configured to couple light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4, output coupler 110). However, Yang ‘684 teaches that the output coupler, rather than the input coupler, comprises the SRG, as applied above, and fails to teach a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler toward the output coupler. Popovich, also related to displays including waveguides with diffractive coupling elements (see paragraphs 0141-0142), teaches a display including an input coupler (Fig. 14, input grating 1402), an output coupler (Fig. 14, overlap region 1406; see paragraph 0142), and a cross-coupler (Fig. 14, first fold grating 1404a and second fold grating 1404b), each comprising diffraction gratings. Popovich further teaches that the diffraction efficiencies of the gratings can be varied across different areas of the gratings (see paragraphs 0059, 0076-0078), including to compensate for attenuation (see paragraphs 0077-0078), and further teaches that the crossed gratings allow for expanding the image propagating in the waveguide (see paragraph 0142). In order to expand images propagating in 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 modify the Yang ‘684 device to include a cross-coupler, since it was previously known in the art, and to spatially vary any of the gratings of the input coupler, the cross coupler, and the output coupler in order to compensate for attenuation and improve image quality. In the modified Yang ‘684 device it would be obvious to provide the input coupler and the cross-coupler as surface relief gratings in the substrate, as this is the structure of the output grating of Yang ‘684 Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 10: Yang ‘684 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. Yang ‘684 further discloses that the device includes an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 1, input coupler 104) and an output coupler configured to couple light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4, output coupler 110), wherein the output coupler comprises the SRG (see paragraph 0009). However, Yang ‘684 fails to teach a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler toward the output coupler. Popovich, also related to displays including waveguides with diffractive coupling elements (see paragraphs 0141-0142), teaches a display including an input coupler (Fig. 14, input grating 1402), an output coupler (Fig. 14, overlap region 1406; see paragraph 0142), and a cross-coupler (Fig. 14, first fold grating 1404a and second fold grating 1404b), each comprising diffraction gratings. In order to expand images propagating in 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 modify the Yang ‘684 device to include a cross-coupler, since it was previously known in the art.
Regarding claim 11: Yang ‘684 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. Yang ‘684 further discloses that the device includes an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 1, input coupler 104) and an output coupler configured to couple light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4, output coupler 110). However, Yang ‘684 fails to teach a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler toward the output coupler and teaches that the output coupler, rather than the cross-coupler, comprises the SRG, as applied above. Popovich, also related to displays including waveguides with diffractive coupling elements (see paragraphs 0141-0142), teaches a display including an input coupler (Fig. 14, input grating 1402), an output coupler (Fig. 14, overlap region 1406; see paragraph 0142), and a cross-coupler (Fig. 14, first fold grating 1404a and second fold grating 1404b), each comprising diffraction gratings. Popovich further teaches that the diffraction efficiencies of the gratings can be varied across different areas of the gratings (see paragraphs 0059, 0076-0078), including to compensate for attenuation (see paragraphs 0077-0078), and further teaches that the crossed gratings allow for expanding the image propagating in the waveguide (see paragraph 0142). In order to expand images propagating in 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 modify the Yang ‘684 device to include a cross-coupler, since it was previously known in the art, and to spatially vary any of the gratings of the input coupler, the cross coupler, and the output coupler in order to compensate for attenuation and improve image quality. In the modified Yang ‘684 device it would be obvious to provide the input coupler and the cross-coupler as surface relief gratings in the substrate, as this is the structure of the output grating of Yang ‘684 Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 12: Yang ‘684 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. Yang ‘684 further discloses that the device includes an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 1, input coupler 104) and an output coupler configured to couple light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4, output coupler 110). However, Yang ‘684 fails to teach an interleaved coupler that comprises the SRG and an additional SRG overlapping the SRG, wherein the interleaved coupler is configured to expand the light and to couple the light out of the waveguide, the SRG has a first grating vector, and the additional SRG has a second grating vector non-parallel to the first grating vector. Additionally, Yang ‘684 teaches that the output coupler, rather than an interleaved coupler, comprises the SRG, as applied above. Popovich, also related to displays including waveguides with diffractive coupling elements (see paragraphs 0141-0142), teaches a display including an input coupler (Fig. 14, input grating 1402), an interleaved coupler (Fig. 14, including first fold grating 1404a and second fold grating 1404b, including overlap region 1406; see paragraph 0142), each comprising diffraction gratings, and having first and second grating vectors which are not parallel to each other (see Fig. 16, grating vectors k1 and k2). Popovich further teaches that the diffraction efficiencies of the gratings can be varied across different areas of the gratings (see paragraphs 0059, 0076-0078), including to compensate for attenuation (see paragraphs 0077-0078), and further teaches that the interleaved gratings allow for expanding the image propagating in the waveguide as well as output coupling light (see paragraph 0142). In order to expand images propagating in 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 modify the Yang ‘684 device to include an interleaved coupler, since it was previously known in the art, and to spatially vary at least one of the SRGs in order to compensate for attenuation and improve image quality. In the modified Yang ‘684 device it would be obvious to provide the input coupler and the interleaved couplers as surface relief gratings in the substrate, as this is the structure of the output grating of Yang ‘684 Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 19: Yang ‘684 disclosesAn electronic device (Fig. 7, display apparatus 750, including pupil-replicating light guide 400 of Fig. 4, see paragraph 0044) comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 4, slab 102); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 4, grating layer 411); and a first surface relief grating (SRG) on the substrate (Fig. 4, out-coupling grating 410 is a SRG).
In the Yang ‘684 device, the first SRG inherently has a first diffraction efficiency within a first region of the substrate (see Annotated Fig. 4), and the substrate has a second diffraction efficiency within a second region of the substrate (see Annotated Fig. 4). Also in the Yang ‘684 device, the first SRG has a gradient diffraction efficiency within a third region of the substrate (see Annotated Fig. 4), and the third region laterally surrounds the first region of the substrate and laterally separates the first region of the substrate from the second region of the substrate (see Annotated Fig. 4), and the gradient diffraction efficiency decreases from the first diffraction efficiency at the first region to the second diffraction efficiency at the second region (see Annotated Fig. 4 and paragraph 0035).
Yang ‘684 fails to teach a second SRG on the substrate, whereinthe second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region and a fourth region of the substrate, that the first SRG is oriented non-parallel with respect to the second SRG, and that the first SRG and the second SRG together have the first diffraction efficiency and the gradient diffraction efficiency. However, Popovich teaches that two surface relief gratings can form an integrated grating having overlapping areas, can have different slant angles, and that they have the advantage of allowing implementing full color waveguides, large field of view, and device miniaturization (see paragraphs 0090-0093). In order to obtain these taught benefits of integrated gratings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Yang ‘684 device to include a second SRG on the substrate, wherein the second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region and a fourth region of the substrate, that the first SRG is oriented non-parallel with respect to the second SRG, and that the first SRG and the second SRG together have the first diffraction efficiency and the gradient diffraction efficiency.
Annotated Fig. 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
424
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. Regarding claim 20: Modified Yang ‘684 teachesThe electronic device of claim 19 (as applied above), wherein the second diffraction efficiency is zero (the diffraction efficiency is zero in the region where there is no grating, i.e. the second region).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0341684; hereinafter Yang ‘684) in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0137777; hereinafter Yang ‘777).
Regarding claim 14: Yang ‘684 discloses the electronic device of claim 13, as applied above. Yang ‘684 fails to disclose that the SRG has a peak diffraction efficiency within the central region and the peripheral region laterally surrounds the central region, since the diffraction efficiency is only taught to increase in the y-direction (see paragraph 0035), rather than increasing to a peak in the y-direction and then decreasing. However, Yang ‘777, also related to diffraction gratings for coupling in and out image light for waveguide displays (see paragraph 0004), teaches that the diffraction efficiency can have a variety of profiles (see Figs. 5a-5f), including circular profiles (see Figs. 5c and 5f) wherein the central region has a peak diffraction efficiency and lower diffraction efficiency in the peripheral region laterally surrounding the central region (see paragraph 0061). In circumstances where it is desirable to smoothly vary the diffraction efficiency toward the edges of a grating, 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 Yang ‘684 device such that the SRG has a peak diffraction efficiency within a central region and the peripheral region laterally surrounds the central region, since it was previously taught by Yang ‘777.
Regarding claim 15: Modified Yang ‘684 teachesThe electronic device of claim 14 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has grooves and a depth of grooves decreases, in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate (see Yang ‘777 Figs. 5C and 5F as well as paragraph 0061; see also Yang ‘684 Fig. 4; in both references, the SRG is taught to have grooves with a depth that decreases in the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive potion of the substrate).
Regarding claim 16: Modified Yang ‘684 teachesThe electronic device of claim 14 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has a duty cycle that varies, in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate (see Yang ‘684 paragraph 0027 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Yang ‘684The electronic device of claim 14 (as applied above), further comprising: a coating on the SRG (Yang ‘684, Fig. 4, phase compensation layer 418), wherein the substrate has a first refractive index (Yang ‘684, paragraph 0037 discloses suitable grating layer materials for the substrate, any of which inherently has a first refractive index), the coating has a second refractive index (Yang ‘684, paragraph 0038 discloses suitable phase compensation layer materials, any of which inherently has a second refractive index). Yang ‘684 further discloses that the coating has a thickness that decreases, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate (see Yang ‘684, Fig. 4, thickness of phase compensation layer from non-uniform grating region to non-grating region). Yang ‘684 fails to disclose that the first refractive index is different from the second refractive index. However, Yang ‘684 lists different suitable materials for the substrate and the coating, respectively, and the refractive index would be determined by the materials selected for the coating and the substrate. Based on a selection from the lists of suitable materials for the coating and the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select materials with different refractive indices.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0341684; hereinafter Yang ‘684) in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0137777; hereinafter Yang ‘777) and further in view of Valera et al. (US 2015/0355394; hereinafter Valera).
Modified Yang ‘684 teaches the electronic device of claim 14, as applied above. Yang ‘684 fails to teach that the SRG has a non-perpendicular blaze angle that varies, in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate. However, Valera, also related to surface relief gratings having varying diffraction efficiency (see Abstract), teaches that the diffraction efficiency can be varied with a non-perpendicular blaze angle that varies (see Fig. 1), and that such a design allows for a greater degree of variation and greater precision (see paragraph 0002). Since it was previously taught by Valera, 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 Yang ‘684 device by varying the diffraction efficiency in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate, using a non-perpendicular blaze angle that varies, in order to obtain the taught benefits of enabling a greater degree of variation and greater precision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874