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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant's amendments do not fully overcome the objections to claims 18 and 20. The objections have been maintained as explained below.
Applicant's amendments and remarks overcome the previous 112b rejections of claim 4, 5, 7 and 17, however new rejections of claims 4 and 17 are made after further consideration.
Applicant's amendments do not overcome the 112b rejections of claims 2, 3, and 6. The rejections have been maintained are further explained below. Specifically, limitations related to “a processor” were added to claims 1 and 15, but none of the dependent claims related to a processor were amended to in view of this new limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejections 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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are now rejected over US20220043394A1 by Smeeton et al. (previously cited) in view of US20210109353A1 by Nicholson et al. (previously cited). Further, claims 4-11 and 17-20 are now rejected over Smeeton in view of Nicholson and in further view of US20120002256A1 by Lacoste et al. (previously cited).
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, "the measured further intensity" in line 4 should read "the measured intensity".
Regarding claim 20, "the second array of detectors" in line 2 and 5 and should read "the array of detectors".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-11, 13, and 16-20 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 2, the claim recites "a processor communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors, wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on the measured intensity". It is unclear if this is the same processor as the one newly recited in claim 1. Further, it is unclear which intensity "the measured intensity" refers to. Claim 1 recites "a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront" and "a respective intensity that is different from an expected intensity". It is unclear which of these is the single measured intensity referenced by claim 2. For the purposes of examination, the processor is considered to be the same one recited in claim 1 and "the measured intensity" is interpreted to refer to any intensity measured by the first plurality of detectors. Further, it appears the claim was intended to be canceled as a similar limitation was added to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites "wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on a comparison between the measured intensity and one of (i) a threshold intensity or (ii) an expected intensity." Is this "expected intensity" the same one recited in claim 1? For the purposes of examination, the expected intensity may be the same as the one in claim 1. Further, it appears the claim was intended to be canceled as a similar limitation was added to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, upon further consideration and the clarification provided by the applicant (see remarks page 9), it appears the previous recitation of "a third surface that is partially transmissive reflective" was clear the context of the claims. The examiner points toward the applicant's specification [0106]-[0107] which teaches the surface 524a is partially transmissive reflective and the input port is on this surface. Additionally, the intermediate input wavefront is output by the third surface and does not appear to have an embodiment where it is output from the fourth surface. Thus, for the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as "a third surface that is partially transmissive reflective" and "the intermediate input wavefront is output by the third surface". Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, for the same reasons as claim 4 above, the claim is interpreted as "the third surface being partially transmissive-reflective" for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the claims recite " further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect". It is unclear if this is the same processor as the one newly recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the processor is considered to be the same one recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites "further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect based on which detector in the array of detectors detected the defect ". It is unclear if this is the same processor as the one newly recited in claim 1. Further, claim 1 already recites "a location of the defect" For the purposes of examination, the processor and location are considered to be the same one recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites "further comprising: determining, by a processor communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors". It is unclear if this is the same processor as the one newly recited in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, the processor is considered to be the same one recited in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites "wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity". Is this "expected intensity" the same one recited in claim 15? For the purposes of examination, the expected intensity may be the same as the one in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites "determining, by a processor, a location of the defect based on the second array of detectors". It is unclear if this is the same processor as the one newly recited in claim 15. Further, claim 15 already recites "a location of the defect" For the purposes of examination, the processor and location are considered to be the same one recited in claim 15.
Claims 5, 7 8-10, and 18 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220043394A1 by Smeeton (previously cited) in view of US20210109353A1 by Nicholson (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Smeeton teaches a light engine configured to detect a defect ([0012] fault detection; at least Fig. 12), wherein the light engine comprises:
a first waveguide ([0255] slab waveguide 1200), wherein the first waveguide comprises (i) a first surface that is partially transmissive-reflective ([0255] a top surface 1203a may allow some transmission of light) , and (ii) a second surface opposite to the first surface ([0255] bottom surface 120b);
wherein the first waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a first input port, an input wavefront ([0255] an input port 1201 arranged to receive input light 1210), and (ii) provide waveguiding of the input wavefront by internal reflection between the first and second surfaces thereby replicating the input wavefront along a first replication direction (Fig. 12; [0255] light generally propagates along the slab by internal reflection but a series of replicas, R0 to R7, of the light rays are formed owing to the partial transmissivity of the top surface 1203 a); and
a first plurality of light detectors ([0256]; [0253] one or more photodiodes may be positioned at or near the first reflective surface 1120, at a point at which one of the replica rays is expected to contact it) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide opposite to the first input port in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront generated by the internal reflection ([255]) along the first replication direction ([0253]; See fig. 12 and 11, replicas are output opposite the first input port; [0044] arranged to detect light at a respective plurality of positions of the holographic reconstruction and to provide a respective plurality of output signals related to light detection), wherein an individual light detector of the first plurality of light detectors is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide ([0044]) and
a processor communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors ([0018] processor [0046] The fault detection circuit), wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect within the first waveguide based on which light detector of the first plurality of light detectors measured a respective intensity that is different from an expected intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit may be arranged to have stored thereon, or to have access to, the plurality of expected signals, which would be expected to be received from the detector array… to compare the received output signal from the light detection element to that one or more particular expected signals; [0015] "the light pattern will dynamically change position or location, thereby changing which part (if any) of the light pattern would be expected to occur at the location of a particular light detection element"; [0023]-[0024]).
Smeeton does not explicitly teach wherein an individual light detector of the first plurality of light detectors is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide.
However, Smeeton teaches one or more light detectors may be provided at a suitable location, for monitoring the light without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide ([0253]).
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation. Nicholson and Smeeton are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical waveguides.
Nicholson teaches wherein an individual light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein an individual light detector of the first plurality of light detectors is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide as suggested by Nicholson in order to monitor the waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]) without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide (Smeeton [0253]).
Regarding claim 2, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 1, and Smeeton further teaches comprising a processor communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors, wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on the measured intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit).
Regarding claim 3, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 1, and Smeeton further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on a comparison between the measured intensity and one of (i) a threshold intensity or (ii) an expected intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit expected signals).
Regarding claim 12, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 1, and Smeeton further teaches a control device ([0018] controller), wherein the control device comprises at least one aperture arranged to be switchable between a light transmissive state and a light non-transmissive state ([0019] shutter).
Although Smeeton does not explicitly teach wherein the light engine is arranged such that the input wavefront passes through the at least one aperture prior to being received at the first input port, Smeeton teaches activating one or more barriers or shutters, along the light path, within the holographic projector, between the light source and the observer ([0048]). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify, Smeeton to include wherein the light engine is arranged such that the input wavefront passes through the at least one aperture prior to being received at the first input port in order to efficiently block light all light from the source.
Regarding claim 13, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 12, and Smeeton further teaches further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on whether the at least one aperture is in the light transmissive state or the light non-transmissive state ([0019] fault detection circuit may be arranged to alter or to prevent further light projection, if it identifies a difference between said one or more output signals from the respective plurality of detection elements and the one or more expected signals, to ensure safe operation of the holographic projector).
Regarding claim 14, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 1, and Smeeton further teaches wherein: the first waveguide further comprises a third surface extending from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 12 see surface extending from bottom surface 1203b and top surface 1203a on the left side of the waveguide).
Smeeton is silent as to a first plurality of light detectors is optically coupled to the third surface of the first waveguide.
However, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches the first waveguide further comprises a third surface extending from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 4 shows perimeter surface 224 which extends from first and second surfaces 216 and 220; [0049]); and the light detector is optically coupled to the third surface of the first waveguide (Fig. 2 and 8 shows detector 184 at perimeter surface; [0046]; [0063]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the light detectors along the third surface of the waveguide where residual light is emitted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include the first waveguide further comprises a third surface extending from the first surface to the second surface; and the first plurality of light detectors is optically coupled to the third surface of the first waveguide as suggested by Nicholson in order to monitor the perimeter surface to improve defect detection (Nicholson [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Smeeton teaches a method for determining a defect in a light engine ([0012] fault detection; at least Fig. 12), the method comprising:
receiving, on a first input port ([0255] an input port 1201 arranged to receive input light 1210) on a first surface ([0255] a top surface 1203 a may allow some transmission of light) of a first waveguide ([0255] slab waveguide 1200), an input wavefront ([0255] input light 1210), the first surface being partially transmissive-reflective ([0255]);
providing waveguiding of the input wavefront by internal reflection of the input wavefront between the first surface and a second surface of the first waveguide (Fig. 12; [0255] bottom surface 1203 b; light generally propagates along the slab by internal reflection but a series of replicas, R0 to R7, of the light rays are formed owing to the partial transmissivity of the top surface 1203 a), wherein the second surface of the first waveguide is positioned opposite to the first surface of the first waveguide (Fig. 12; [0255]); and
measuring, by a first plurality of light detectors ([0256]; [0253] one or more photodiodes may be positioned at or near the first reflective surface 1120, at a point at which one of the replica rays is expected to contact it) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide opposite to the first input port in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront generated by the internal reflection along a first replication direction ([0253]; See fig. 12 and 11, replicas are output opposite the first input port; [0044] arranged to detect light at a respective plurality of positions of the holographic reconstruction and to provide a respective plurality of output signals related to light detection), an intensity of a input wavefront after waveguiding has been provided by the first waveguide ([0044]); and
determining, by a processor communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors ([0018] processor [0046] The fault detection circuit), a location of the defect within the first waveguide based on which light detector of the first plurality of light detectors measured a respective intensity that is different from an expected intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit may be arranged to have stored thereon, or to have access to, the plurality of expected signals, which would be expected to be received from the detector array… to compare the received output signal from the light detection element to that one or more particular expected signals; [0015] "the light pattern will dynamically change position or location, thereby changing which part (if any) of the light pattern would be expected to occur at the location of a particular light detection element"; [0023]-[0024]).
Smeeton does not explicitly teach measuring, by a first plurality of light detectors an intensity of a residual portion of the input wavefront after waveguiding has been provided by the first waveguide, wherein an individual light detector of the first plurality of light detectors is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide.
However, Smeeton teaches one or more light detectors may be provided at a suitable location, for monitoring the light without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide ([0253]).
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation. Nicholson and Smeeton are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical waveguides.
Nicholson teaches measuring, by a light detector, an intensity of a residual portion of the input wavefront after waveguiding has been provided by the first waveguide, wherein the light detector is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include measuring, by a first plurality of light detectors an intensity of a residual portion of the input wavefront after waveguiding has been provided by the first waveguide, wherein an individual light detector of the first plurality of light detectors is positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide as suggested by Nicholson in order to monitor the waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]) without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide (Smeeton [0253]).
Regarding claim 16, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the method of claim 15, and Smeeton further teaches the defect based on the measured intensity by comparing the measured intensity with a threshold intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit).
Claims 4-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Nicholson as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US20120002256A1 by Lacoste et al. (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the light engine of claim 1, but Smeeton is silent as to wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront, and wherein the light engine further comprises: a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide, wherein the second waveguide comprises: (i) a third surface that is partially transmissive-reflective, and (ii) a fourth surface positioned opposite to the third surface; and wherein the second waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a second input port on the third surface, an initial input wavefront, (ii) provide waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection between the third surface and the fourth surface, thereby replicating the initial input wavefront along a second replication direction, where the second replication direction is perpendicular to the first replication direction, and (iii) output, from the third surface or the fourth surface, the intermediate input wavefront, wherein the intermediate input wavefront comprises one or more replicas of the initial input wavefront.
However, Lacoste does address this limitation. Lacoste and Smeeton are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical waveguides.
Lacoste teaches (at least Fig. 6a-c; see updated annotated Fig. 6c; [0103] pair of stacked pupil expanders 600) wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront (see annotated figure, wavefront entering first waveguide from second waveguide), and wherein the light engine further comprises: a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide (second waveguide directs light to first waveguide), wherein the second waveguide comprises: (i) a third surface that is partially transmissive-reflective (figure shows third surface reflects and transmits), and (ii) a fourth surface positioned opposite to the third surface (bottom reflecting surface of second waveguide); and wherein the second waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a second input port on the third surface (see annotated figure), an initial input wavefront, (ii) provide waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection between the third surface and the fourth surface, thereby replicating the initial input wavefront along a second replication direction, where the second replication direction is perpendicular to the first replication direction ([0103]-[0104] two-dimensional replication the replicators may be stacked such that the direction of light propagation in a first of the expanders is substantially perpendicular to the direction of light propagation in the second expander), and (iii) output, from the third surface or the fourth surface, the intermediate input wavefront, wherein the intermediate input wavefront comprises one or more replicas of the initial input wavefront ([0103]-[0104]; see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second replicator to provide two-dimensional replication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront, and wherein the light engine further comprises: a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide, wherein the second waveguide comprises: (i) a third surface that is partially transmissive-reflective, and (ii) a fourth surface positioned opposite to the third surface; and wherein the second waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a second input port on the third surface, an initial input wavefront, (ii) provide waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection between the third surface and the fourth surface, thereby replicating the initial input wavefront along a second replication direction, where the second replication direction is perpendicular to the first replication direction, and (iii) output, from the third surface or the fourth surface, the intermediate input wavefront, wherein the intermediate input wavefront comprises one or more replicas of the initial input wavefront as suggested by Lacoste in order to efficiently expand a two-dimensional image provided to the display ([0102]).
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 4, and although Smeeton does not explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of light detectors is configured to measure the intensity of the residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide by measuring an intensity of a residual portion of each of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide, the examiner notes that the residual portion of each of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront is the same as a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide recited in claim 1 because the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront are the corresponding replica wavefronts.
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches wherein an individual light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein the first plurality of light detectors is configured to measure the intensity of the residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide by measuring an intensity of a residual portion of each of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide as suggested by Nicholson in order to monitor the waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]) without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide (Smeeton [0253]).
Regarding claim 6, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 4, and Smeeton teaches further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on the measured intensity wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on a measured intensity of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront ([0046] The fault detection circuit may be arranged to have stored thereon, or to have access to, the plurality of expected signals, which would be expected to be received from the detector array… to compare the received output signal from the light detection element to that one or more particular expected signals; [0015] "the light pattern will dynamically change position or location, thereby changing which part (if any) of the light pattern would be expected to occur at the location of a particular light detection element"; [0023]-[0024]).
Smeeton does not explicitly teach based on at least one of (i) a measured intensity of a residual portion of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront or (ii) a comparison of a measured intensity of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront and a residual portion of an adjacent replica of the intermediate input wavefront, however, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use measured intensity of a residual portion of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront if the detectors were rearranged to measure the residual portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on at least one of (i) a measured intensity of a residual portion of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront or (ii) a comparison of a measured intensity of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront and a residual portion of an adjacent replica of the intermediate input wavefront in order to further detects faults and reduce error.
Regarding claim 7, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 4, and Smeeton teaches wherein the first waveguide has a planar shape ([0255] slab waveguide is planar).
Smeeton is silent as to wherein the second waveguide has an elongated shape.
However, Lacoste does address this limitation.
Lacoste teaches wherein t the first waveguide has a planar shape (see annotated Fig.6c shows first waveguide is planar) and the second waveguide has an elongated shape (see annotated Fig.6c shows second waveguide is elongated; [0104]).
It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smeeton such that the first waveguide has a planar shape and the second waveguide has an elongated shape in order to efficiently produce 2 dimensional images.
Regarding claim 8, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 4, and although Smeeton teaches a first plurality of light detectors ([0256]; [0253] one or more photodiodes may be positioned at or near the first reflective surface 1120, at a point at which one of the replica rays is expected to contact it) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide, Smeeton is silent as to further comprising a second plurality of light detectors positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of the initial input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the second waveguide.
However, Smeeton teaches one or more light detectors may be provided at a suitable location, for monitoring the light without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide ([0253]).
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches wherein a light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of a waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. The second plurality of light detectors performs the same function for the second waveguide as the first plurality of light detectors does for the first waveguide. It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include a second plurality of light detectors positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of the initial input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the second waveguide as suggested by Nicholson in order to further monitor the second waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 4, and Smeeton further teaches wherein the first plurality of light detectors comprises an array of detectors ([0044] detector array).
Regarding claim 10, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 9, and although Smeeton does not explicitly teach wherein each detector of the array of detectors is positioned to receive a respective residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront, the examiner notes that a respective residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront is the same as a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide recited in claim 1 because the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront are the corresponding replica wavefronts.
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches wherein an individual light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein each detector of the array of detectors is positioned to receive a respective residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront as suggested by Nicholson in order to monitor the waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]) without interfering with the core functionality of a waveguide (Smeeton [0253]).
Regarding claim 11, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches that light engine of claim 9, and Smeeton further teaches further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect based on which detector in the array of detectors detected the defect ([0046] The fault detection circuit may be arranged to have stored thereon, or to have access to, the plurality of expected signals, which would be expected to be received from the detector array… to compare the received output signal from the light detection element to that one or more particular expected signals; [0015] "the light pattern will dynamically change position or location, thereby changing which part (if any) of the light pattern would be expected to occur at the location of a particular light detection element"; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Smeeton modified by Nicholson teaches the method of claim 15, but Smeeton is silent as to wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, on a second input port on a third surface of a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide, an initial input wavefront, the third surface being partially transmissive-reflective; providing waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection of the initial input wavefront between the third surface and a fourth surface of the second waveguide, wherein the fourth surface is positioned opposite to the third surface; and outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide towards the first surface of the first waveguide.
However, Lacoste does address this limitation. Lacoste and Smeeton are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical waveguides.
Lacoste teaches (at least Fig. 6a-c; see annotated Fig. 6c above; [0103] pair of stacked pupil expanders 600) wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront (see annotated figure, wavefront entering first waveguide from second waveguide), and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, on a second input port on a third surface of a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide (second waveguide directs light to first waveguide), an initial input wavefront (wavefront entering second waveguide), the third surface being partially transmissive-reflective (figure shows third surface reflects and transmits); providing waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection of the initial input wavefront between the third surface and a fourth surface of the second waveguide (bottom reflecting surface of second waveguide), wherein the fourth surface is positioned opposite to the third surface (see annotated figure); and outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide towards the first surface of the first waveguide ([0103]-[0104]; see annotated figure).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second replicator to provide two-dimensional replication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, on a second input port on a third surface of a second waveguide that is upstream of the first waveguide, an initial input wavefront, the third surface being partially transmissive-reflective; providing waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection of the initial input wavefront between the third surface and a fourth surface of the second waveguide, wherein the fourth surface is positioned opposite to the third surface; and outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide towards the first surface of the first waveguide as suggested by Lacoste in order to efficiently expand a two-dimensional image provided to the display ([0102]).
Regarding claim 18, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 17, and although Smeeton teaches a first plurality of light detectors ([0256]; [0253] one or more photodiodes may be positioned at or near the first reflective surface 1120, at a point at which one of the replica rays is expected to contact it) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide and wherein determining the defect is based on the measured intensity ([0046]; [0015]), Smeeton is silent as to further comprising: measuring, by a second plurality of light detectors, an intensity of a residual portion of the initial input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the second waveguide, wherein determining the defect is based on the measured further intensity of the initial input wavefront.
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches wherein a light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of a waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. The second plurality of light detectors performs the same function for the second waveguide as the first plurality of light detectors does for the first waveguide. It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position detectors to measure the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to measuring, by a second plurality of light detectors, an intensity of a residual portion of the initial input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the second waveguide, wherein determining the defect is based on the measured further intensity of the initial input wavefront as suggested by Nicholson in order to further monitor the second waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 17, and Smeeton further teaches wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity ([0046] The fault detection circuit expected signals); or comparing a measured intensity of a residual portion of at least one replica of the initial input wavefront with a measured intensity of a residual portion of an adjacent replica of the initial input wavefront.
Regarding claim 20, Smeeton modified by Nicholson and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 18, and although Smeeton teaches a first plurality of light detectors comprises an array of detectors ([0044] detector array), wherein individual detectors in the first array of detectors are positioned to receive a respective replica of a wavefront ([0044] arranged to detect light at a respective plurality of positions of the holographic reconstruction and to provide a respective plurality of output signals related to light detection) and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by a processor, a location of the defect based on the array of detectors ([0046]; [0015]), Smeeton is silent as to wherein the second plurality of light detectors comprises an array of detectors, wherein individual detectors in the second array of detectors are positioned to receive a respective replica of the initial input wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by a processor, a location of the defect based on the second array of detectors.
Further, Nicholson does address this limitation.
Nicholson teaches wherein a light detector positioned to measure a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of a waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]; see Fig. 2 for residual portion of wavefront exiting out edge of waveguide).
Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. The second plurality of light detectors performs the same function for the second waveguide as the first plurality of light detectors does for the second waveguide. It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar detector array to collect the same type of data to locate the defect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smeeton to include wherein the second plurality of light detectors comprises an array of detectors, wherein individual detectors in the second array of detectors are positioned to receive a respective replica of the initial input wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by a processor, a location of the defect based on the second array of detectors as suggested by Nicholson in order provide further data to monitor the second waveguide for faults (Nicholson [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights