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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A11, B3 and E1 (figures 14, 7c, and 10a; including claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-17) in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: the embodiments are not patentably distance species, the examiner has failed to demonstrate a reliable search burden between the different variants, and the PBS subgroups are improperly implemented as separate species. This is not found persuasive because claims 5 and 8-12 are directed to multiple species. In addition, the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, such as the different arrangements of the meta layers. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777).
Regarding claim 1, Overvig et al. (figures1-7) discloses a polarization-separating device, comprising:
an optically transmitting substrate (100); a transmissive meta-surface structure (211; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs) disposed on the substrate, the transmissive meta-surface structure being configured to:
(i) receive incident light (front first or second light sources 6 / 8);
(ii) angularly separate the incident light into orthogonal polarization components (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs);
(iii) wherein a first polarization component is transmitted by said meta-surface structure without altering a propagation direction of the first polarization component (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs);
(iv) and wherein a second polarization component is directed by said meta-surface structure at a non-zero angle with respect to a propagation direction of the incident light (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs).
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 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 2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777) in view of Go et al. (WO 2023/157600).
Regarding claim 2, Overvig et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Overvig et al. is silent regarding whereas the second polarization component is directed in multiple angular directions. Go et al. (figure 2) teaches whereas the second polarization component is directed in multiple angular directions (L11, L12, L13, L22, L31, L32; the Stokes parameter S .sub.2 is obtained based on the detection result of the +45° linear polarization component L .sub.21 by the photodetector 321 and the detection result of the −45° linear polarization component L .sub.22 by the photodetector 322; see at least page 4, 5th paragraph and page 5, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Go et al. in order to achieve a polarized light separation element whereby separation and condensing of polarized light components of object light can be suitably performed by a simple structure.
Regarding claim 7, Overvig et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Overvig et al. is silent regarding whereas the second polarization component is directed in multiple angular directions. Go et al. (figure 2) teaches
Regarding claim 1, Overvig et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the incident light is received from a collimated source (laser light source 101).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777) in view of Nagarajan (US 2022/0407604).
Regarding claim 3, Overvig et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Overvig et al. is silent regarding whereas the first polarization component is TE-polarized and the second polarization component is TM-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2) teaches whereas the first polarization component is TE-polarized and the second polarization component is TM-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Regarding claim 4, Overvig et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Overvig et al. is silent regarding whereas the first polarization component is TM-polarized and the second polarization component is TE-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2D) teaches whereas the first polarization component is TM-polarized and the second polarization component is TE-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Regarding claim 6, Nagarajan (figures 1-2D) teaches wherein the polarization-separating device includes at least two meta-surface layers (1601 and 1602; see at least paragraph 0051).
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2023/0384499) in view of Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777).
Regarding claim 12, Klug (figure 8B) discloses a device, comprising:
a first optical element including a meta-surface structure of a first type configured to (3012; in-coupling optical elements may include a meta-surface (e.g., comprise a PBPE), such as a surface have a pattern with feature sizes on the order of one's or ten's of nanometers; see at least paragraph 0070);
a second optical element including multiple meta-surface sub-regions of a second type and a third type, coupled to the meta-surface sub-regions of the first type, wherein the meta-surface sub-regions of the second type are configured to (e.g., multiple different wavelengths or multiple different polarizations); see at least paragraph 0074):
(i) receive the first polarization component from the first optical element (light stream A may have a different polarization than light stream B and the in-coupling optical elements 3012 and 3014 may be configured to selectively redirect light based on polarization; see at least paragraph 0069);
(ii) transform the first polarization component into a second polarization component (the optical element may include a meta-surface (e.g., comprise a PBPE), such as a surface have a pattern with feature sizes on the order of one's or ten's of nanometers; see at least paragraph 0070);
(iii) transmit the second polarization component in a direction of the incident light received by the first optical element (in-coupling optical elements 3014 may selectively redirect at least a portion of light stream B to in-couple that light stream into the light guide 3004; see at least paragraph 0065);
a third optical element including a meta-surface structure of the third type optically coupled to the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type (3016; The in-coupling optical elements can comprise at least one of diffractive structures, liquid crystal material, meta-surfaces, metamaterials, PBPE structures, liquid crystal polarization grating comprising PBPE structures or liquid crystal polarization grating comprising metasurface; see at least paragraph 0009), the meta-surface structure of the third type being configured to
(i) receive the second polarization component from the first optical element (aveguide 3002 includes in-coupling optical elements 3012, which may be configured to in-couple light stream A into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3042; waveguide 3004 includes in-coupling optical elements 3014, which may be configured to in-couple light stream B into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3044; waveguide 3006 includes in-coupling optical elements 3016, which may be configured to in-couple light stream C into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3046; see at least paragraph 0073);
(ii) modify the direction of the received second polarization component by deflecting the received second polarization component at non-zero angle with respect to an incident angle onto the third optical element (both light streams A and B may be in-coupled to waveguide 3002, with the in-coupling optical elements 3012 selectively in-coupling light streams A and B while allowing light streams C and D to pass through, and with the light streams A and B providing light to the in-coupling optical elements 3012 at different times while simultaneously providing light streams C and/or D to the in-coupling optical elements 3012; see at least paragraph 0074);
Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent regarding two polarization components. Overvig et al. (figures1-7) a first optical element including a meta-surface structure of a first type configured to (211; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs):
(i) receive incident light (front first or second light sources 6 / 8);
(ii) angularly separate the incident light into orthogonal polarization components (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs);
(iii) transmit a first polarization component in a direction of the incident light (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs);
(iv) direct a second polarization component at a non-zero angle with respect to the incident light (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Overvig et al. in order to independently control for a plurality of lights having different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 19, Klug (figure 8B) discloses a device, comprising:
a first optical element including multiple meta-surface polarization beam-splitting sub-regions of a first type (3012; in-coupling optical elements may include a meta-surface (e.g., comprise a PBPE), such as a surface have a pattern with feature sizes on the order of one's or ten's of nanometers; see at least paragraph 0070);
a second optical element including a meta-surface structure of a second type optically coupled to the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type such temporally separated in-coupling may be achieved using in-coupling optical elements that selectively turn light based on multiple different light properties (e.g., multiple different wavelengths or multiple different polarizations); see at least paragraph 0074), the meta-surface structure of the second type being configured to:
(i) receive the first polarization component from the first optical element (light stream A may have a different polarization than light stream B and the in-coupling optical elements 3012 and 3014 may be configured to selectively redirect light based on polarization; see at least paragraph 0069);
(ii) transform the first polarization component into a second polarization component (the optical element may include a meta-surface (e.g., comprise a PBPE), such as a surface have a pattern with feature sizes on the order of one's or ten's of nanometers; see at least paragraph 0070);
(iii) transmit the second polarization component in a direction of the incident light received by the first optical element (in-coupling optical elements 3014 may selectively redirect at least a portion of light stream B to in-couple that light stream into the light guide 3004; see at least paragraph 0065);
the meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to (3016; The in-coupling optical elements can comprise at least one of diffractive structures, liquid crystal material, meta-surfaces, metamaterials, PBPE structures, liquid crystal polarization grating comprising PBPE structures or liquid crystal polarization grating comprising metasurface; see at least paragraph 0009), the meta-surface structure of the third type being configured to
(i) receive the second polarization component from the first optical element (aveguide 3002 includes in-coupling optical elements 3012, which may be configured to in-couple light stream A into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3042; waveguide 3004 includes in-coupling optical elements 3014, which may be configured to in-couple light stream B into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3044; waveguide 3006 includes in-coupling optical elements 3016, which may be configured to in-couple light stream C into that waveguide, so that it propagates by TIR in that waveguide as light 3046; see at least paragraph 0073);
(ii) modify the direction of the received second polarization component by deflecting the received second polarization component at non-zero angle with respect to an incident angle onto the third optical element (both light streams A and B may be in-coupled to waveguide 3002, with the in-coupling optical elements 3012 selectively in-coupling light streams A and B while allowing light streams C and D to pass through, and with the light streams A and B providing light to the in-coupling optical elements 3012 at different times while simultaneously providing light streams C and/or D to the in-coupling optical elements 3012; see at least paragraph 0074);
Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent regarding two polarization components. Overvig et al. (figures1-7) a first optical element including a meta-surface structure of a first type configured to (211; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs):
(i) receive incident light by the meta-surface sub-regions (front first or second light sources 6 / 8);
(ii) transmit a first polarization component by the meta-surface sub-regions in a direction of the incident light (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs);
(iii) direct a second polarization component by the meta-surface sub-regions at a non-zero angle with respect to the incident light (figure 7; see at least page 8, first to sixth paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Overvig et al. in order to independently control for a plurality of lights having different wavelengths.
Claims 13-14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2023/0384499) in view of Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777); further in view of Nagarajan (US 2022/0407604).
Regarding claims 13, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent wherein output light transmitted by the device is TE-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2) teaches wherein output light transmitted by the device is TE-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Regarding claim 14, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent wh wherein output light transmitted by the device is TM-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2) teaches wherein output light transmitted by the device is TM-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Regarding claims 20, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein output light transmitted by the device is TE-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2) teaches wherein output light transmitted by the device is TE-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Regarding claim 21, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein output light transmitted by the device is TM-polarized. Nagarajan (figures 1-2) teaches wherein output light transmitted by the device is TM-polarized (A PBSR 3100 is used to receive the incoming light signal R and, following the polarization splitting/rotating function described above, to output the TE-mode part signal R.sub.E to a first waveguide in TE polarization and the TM-mode part R.sub.M to a TM*-branch also in TE polarization; see at least paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Nagarajan in order to decrease angular speed in the light.
Claims 15-18 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2023/0384499) in view of Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777); further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0163709).
Regarding claim 15, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the second polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein the polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Therefore, Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein the second polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions.
Regarding claim 16, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein multiple second polarization components directed in multiple angular directions by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple optically coupled meta-surface structures of the third type. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein multiple second polarization components directed in multiple angular directions by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple optically coupled meta-surface structures of the third type (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein multiple second polarization components directed in multiple angular directions by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple optically coupled meta-surface structures of the third type.
Regarding claim 17, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 16 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components in a direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components in a direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components in a direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type.
Regarding claim 18, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 16 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the angle deflected by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the angle deflected by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein the meta-surface structures of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization components at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the angle deflected by the meta-surface polarization separating structures of the first type.
Regarding claim 22, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the second polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein the polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Therefore, Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein the second polarization component from the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type is directed in multiple angular directions.
Regarding claim 23, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein light from multiple beams of the second polarization component angularly directed by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple meta-surface sub-regions of the third type at multiple angles with respect to the incident angle. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein light from multiple beams of the second polarization component angularly directed by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple meta-surface sub-regions of the third type at multiple angles with respect to the incident angle (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein light from multiple beams of the second polarization component angularly directed by the meta-surface polarization separating structure of the first type are deflected by multiple meta-surface sub-regions of the third type at multiple angles with respect to the incident angle.
Regarding claim 24, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component in the direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component in the direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component in the direction of the incident light received by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type.
Regarding claim 25, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to an angle directed by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type. Lin et al. (figures 9A-13B) teaches wherein the meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to an angle directed by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type (The metasurfaces may take the form of a grating formed by a plurality of repeating unit cells. Each unit cell may comprise two sets or more of nanobeams elongated in crossing directions: one or more first nanobeams elongated in a first direction and a plurality of second nanobeams elongated in a second direction different from the first direction; see at least paragraph 0197). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to provide the polarization component to multiple areas of the device. Klug as modified by Overvig et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein the meta-surface sub-regions of the third type are configured to deflect the received second polarization component at an angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to an angle directed by the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 2023/0384499) in view of Overvig et al. (KR 10-2445777); further in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0371370).
Regarding claim 26, Klug discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Klug is silent regarding wherein the incident light originates from an array of sources optically coupled to the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type. Ouderkirk et al. (figures 1-7C) teaches wherein the incident light originates from an array of sources optically coupled to the meta-surface polarization separating sub-regions of the first type (One or more lenses direct light from the arrays of light emission devices (optionally through the emission intensity arrays) to locations within each eyebox and ultimately to the back of the user's retina(s); see at least paragraph 0147). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify polarized light separation element as taught by Lin et al. in order to achieve compact and lightweight head-mounted display devices and improve the display characteristics.
Regarding claim 27, Ouderkirk et al. (figures 1-7C) teaches wherein individual ones of the sources in the array include micro-lenses to reduce divergence of emitted light (One or more lenses direct light from the arrays of light emission devices (optionally through the emission intensity arrays) to locations within each eyebox and ultimately to the back of the user's retina(s); see at least paragraph 0147).
The limitations “to reduce divergence of emitted light” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the light source of the display is not claimed. The prior art display is capable of reducing divergence of emitted light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871