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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 September, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 16 September, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8-15, 18-21, and 24 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.
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 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodiya et al. (US 2020/0225482; hereinafter Bodiya).
Regarding claim 1: Bodiya disclosesAn electronic device comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 1, light guide 114; see paragraph 0154); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 1, layer including DOEs 110 and 115; see paragraph 0154, laminated film); and a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate (SRGs are disclosed to be laminated onto the surface of the light guide, considered to be a substrate having an SRG in the substrate), wherein the SRG includesa central region (Fig. 4E, any of gratings 404, 406, 408, and 410), and a peripheral region that laterally separates the central region from a non-diffractive portion of the substrate (Fig. 4E, any of secondary gratings 405, 407, 409, and 411 surrounding the respective central region).
Regarding the limitation ”wherein the SRG has a duty cycle that is constant in the central region and that varies across the peripheral region”: Bodiya further discloses that central regions have a grating efficiency (see paragraphs 0106-0107); peripheral regions have a gradient efficiency (see paragraph 0110); and different efficiencies are provided by means of varying the duty cycle/fill factor and/or height (see paragraph 0107). In order to minimize the appearance of harsh lines in the WHUD of Fig. 4E, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the SRG with a duty cycle that is constant in the central region, in order to achieve a uniform grating efficiency, based on the Bodiya disclosure that the central regions have “a grating efficiency” and that the grating efficiency can be changed by changing the duty cycle (“fill factor”), and for the peripheral regions to have a varying duty cycle, based on the Bodiya disclosure that the peripheral regions have a gradient grating efficiency and that the grating efficiency can be changed by changing the duty cycle (see paragraphs 0106-0110).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: an input coupler that comprises the SRG and that is configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 404-405 comprise an SRG configured to couple light into the waveguide); an output coupler configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 410-411 form an output coupler configured to couple the light out of the waveguide); and a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler (Fig. 4E, either of gratings 408-409 and 406-407 are a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 404-405 are an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide); an output coupler that comprises the SRG and that is configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 410-411 comprise the SRG as applied above and form an output coupler configured to couple the light out of the waveguide); a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler (Fig. 4E, either of gratings 408-409 and 406-407 are a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 404-405 are an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide); an output coupler that is configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 410-411 form an output coupler configured to couple the light out of the waveguide); and a cross-coupler that comprises the SRG and that is configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler (Fig. 4E, either of gratings 408-409 and 406-407 are a cross-coupler configured to redirect the light from the input coupler towards the output coupler and comprise the SRG as applied above).
Claims 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodiya et al. (US 2020/0225482; hereinafter Bodiya), as evidenced by Meshalkin et al. (Analysis of diffraction efficiency of phase gratings in dependence of duty cycle and depth; Journal of Physics Conference Series 1368(2):022047, 2019).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Bodiya teaches the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the SRG has grooves with depths that decrease across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate”, Bodiya further discloses that the grating efficiency of the SRGs can be changed by changing the duty cycle and/or the height of the grating (see paragraph 0107, SRGs having different heights would have depths that decrease across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate) and that the grating efficiency decreases from the central region to the non-diffraction portion of the substrate (see paragraph 0110). As evidenced by Meshalkin, the grating efficiency can be decreased by decreasing groove depth of an SRG (see Figs. 2-3 and last paragraph of page 3; the diffraction efficiency of the first through 6th diffraction orders approaches 0 as the height of the grating approaches 0). In order to achieve the disclosed grating efficiency profile by means of varying the grating height, 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 Bodiya device by providing the SRGs with groove depths that decrease across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate.
Regarding claim 13: Bodiya disclosesAn electronic device comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 1, light guide 114; see paragraph 0154); an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 404-405 comprise an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 1, layer including DOEs 110 and 115; see paragraph 0154, laminated film); and a surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate and configured to redirect the light coupled into the waveguide by the input coupler (SRGs are disclosed to be laminated onto the surface of the light guide, considered to be a substrate having an SRG in the substrate; corresponding gratings/SRGs 408/409 and 406/407 are in the substrate and configured to redirect the light coupled into the waveguide by the input coupler), wherein the SRG includes a central region (Fig. 4E, either of gratings 408 and 406), and a peripheral region that laterally separates the central region from a non-diffractive portion of the substrate (Fig. 4E, either of gratings 409 and 407 surrounding the corresponding central region).
Regarding the limitation “the peripheral region having a diffraction efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate, wherein the SRG has a duty cycle that decreases, in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate”: Bodiya further discloses that central regions have a grating efficiency (see paragraphs 0106-0107); peripheral regions have a gradient efficiency (see paragraph 0110); and different efficiencies are provided by means of varying the duty cycle/fill factor and/or height (see paragraph 0107). In order to minimize the appearance of harsh lines in the WHUD of Fig. 4E, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the SRG with a grating efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate, wherein the SRG has a duty cycle that varies, based on the Bodiya disclosure that the peripheral regions have a gradient grating efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive region and that the grating efficiency can be changed by changing the duty cycle (see paragraphs 0106-0110).
As evidenced by Meshalkin, grating efficiency can be decreased by decreasing the duty cycle (see Fig. 5, first-fifth order diffraction efficiencies all smoothly approach zero as the duty cycle approaches 0%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to decrease the duty cycle in the peripheral region, from the central region to the non-diffractive portion, in order to provide the suggested grating efficiency to minimize harsh lines.
Regarding claim 14: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the SRG has a peak diffraction efficiency within the central region and the peripheral region laterally surrounds the central region (see Fig. 4E and paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 15: Modified Bodiya teaches the electronic device of claim 14, as applied above. Regarding the limitation “wherein the SRG has grooves and a depth of the grooves decreases, in the peripheral region, from a central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate”: Bodiya further discloses that the grating efficiency of the SRGs can be changed by changing the duty cycle and/or the height of the grating (see paragraph 0107, SRGs having different heights would have depths that decrease across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate) and that the grating efficiency decreases from the central region to the non-diffraction portion of the substrate (see paragraph 0110). As evidenced by Meshalkin, grating efficiency can be decreased by decreasing the duty cycle (see Fig. 5, first-fifth order diffraction efficiencies all smoothly approach zero as the duty cycle approaches 0%). In order to achieve the disclosed grating efficiency profile by means of varying the grating height, 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 Bodiya device by providing the SRGs with groove depths that decrease across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodiya et al. (US 2020/0225482; hereinafter Bodiya) in view of Magnusson et al. (Diffractive Optical Components; Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (Third Edition), 2003).
Modified Bodiya teaches the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. Modified Bodiya fails to teach that the SRG is a blazed grating. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known that providing a surface relief grating with a blaze angle allows input energy to be transferred completely to a particular diffracted order, as was taught by Magnusson (see page 426, 2nd column). In order to better control the coupled light characteristics, 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 Bodiya device by providing the SRG with a blaze angle since it was known in the art.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodiya et al. (US 2020/0225482; hereinafter Bodiya) in view of Magnusson et al. (Diffractive Optical Components; Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (Third Edition), 2003), as evidenced by Meshalkin et al. (Analysis of diffraction efficiency of phase gratings in dependence of duty cycle and depth; Journal of Physics Conference Series 1368(2):022047, 2019).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Bodiya teaches the electronic device of claim 14, as applied above. Modified Bodiya fails to teach that the SRG has a blaze angle. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known that providing a surface relief grating with a blaze angle allows input energy to be transferred completely to a particular diffracted order, as was taught by Magnusson (see page 426, 2nd column). In order to better control the coupled light characteristics, 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 Bodiya device by providing the SRG with a blaze angle since it was known in the art.
Regarding claim 21: Modified Bodiya teaches the electronic device of claim 8, as applied above. Modified Bodiya fails to teach that the SRG has a blaze angle. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was known that providing a surface relief grating with a blaze angle allows input energy to be transferred completely to a particular diffracted order, as was taught by Magnusson (see page 426, 2nd column). In order to better control the coupled light characteristics, 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 Bodiya device by providing the SRG with a blaze angle since it was known in the art.
Claims 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodiya et al. (US 2020/0225482; hereinafter Bodiya) in view of Popovich et al. (US 2022/0283377; hereinafter Popovich; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising: an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide (Fig. 4E, gratings 404-405 are an input coupler configured to couple light into the waveguide).
In another embodiment (Fig. 8), Bodiya discloses an interleaved coupler (2D exit pupil expander/output coupler 831). However, Bodiya 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. 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 while minimizing the overall footprint of the 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 Bodiya 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 Bodiya device it would be obvious to provide the input coupler and the interleaved couplers as surface relief gratings in the substrate, Bodiya discloses using surface relief gratings (with varying duty cycle in the peripheral regions) for any of the gratings of the eyeglasses.
Regarding claim 19: Bodiya discloses An electronic device comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 1, light guide 114; see paragraph 0154); a substrate on the waveguide (Fig. 1, layer including DOEs 110 and 115; see paragraph 0154, laminated film); a first surface relief grating (SRG) on the substrate (see Fig. 4B, grating 402/403a).
Bodiya further teaches a third region of the substrate laterally surrounding the grating (see Fig. 4B, region surrounding grating 402/403a) that has a diffraction efficiency of “virtually zero”. Bodiya fails to teach that the second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region and a second region of the substrate, that the first SRG is oriented non-parallel with respect to the second SRG, and that the duty cycle of the first SRG and the second SRG are constant in the first region and vary across the second region. 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 Bodiya device to include a second SRG on the substrate, wherein the second SRG overlaps the first SRG within a first region and a second region of the substrate and wherein the first SRG is oriented non-parallel with respect to the second SRG. Regarding the limitation “the duty cycles of the first SRG and the second SRG are constant in the first region and vary across the second region”: Bodiya further discloses that central regions have a grating efficiency (see paragraphs 0106-0107); peripheral regions have a gradient efficiency (see paragraph 0110); and different efficiencies are provided by means of varying the duty cycle/fill factor and/or height (see paragraph 0107). In order to minimize the appearance of harsh lines in the WHUD of Fig. 4B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the SRG with a grating efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate, wherein the SRG has a duty cycle that varies, based on the Bodiya disclosure that the peripheral regions have a gradient grating efficiency that decreases from the central region to the non-diffractive region and that the grating efficiency can be changed by changing the duty cycle (see paragraphs 0106-0110). In making the Popovich modification described above related to the SRG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first SRG and the second SRG having a duty cycle that is constant in the first region, which is the central region, and varying across the second region, which is the peripheral region, in order to minimize the appearance of harsh edges between the central region and the non-diffractive portion based on the Bodiya disclosure.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Bodiya teachesThe electronic device of claim 19 (as applied above), wherein the diffraction efficiency of the third region of the substrate is zero (see paragraph 0110).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 17, and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2: The closest found prior art, Bodiya, fails to teach or suggest:The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a coating on the SRG, wherein the coating has a decreasing thickness across the peripheral region from the central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate. Therefore, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, 22, and 23: At least due to the allowable features of claim 2, claims, 3, 22, and 23 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17: The closest found prior art, Bodiya, fails to teach or suggest: The electronic device of claim 14, further comprising: a coating on the SRG, wherein the substrate has a first refractive index, the coating has a second refractive index that is different from the first refractive index, and the coating has a thickness that decreases, in the peripheral region, from a central region to the non-diffractive portion of the substrate.
Therefore, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Prosecution Insights