DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The replacement drawings filed 01/21/2026 are acceptable. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections of claims 1 and 5. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the 112b rejections of claims 4-11 and 17-20. The rejections have been maintained.
Although the applicant has provided clarification with respect to the naming of elements in the claims, the initial clarity issues still persist. Specifically, in claims 4 and 17, it appears that the fourth surface should be partially transmissive reflective ([0128]), not the third surface as it is recited in the claim. Further regarding claim 17, the examiner is still unsure what is meant by the last line. Additionally, claim 7 still appears to have the first and second waveguide shapes reversed. The applicant’s remarks (01/21/2026 page 9) provides an explanation about the first and second waveguides, however, it does not appear to explain the above issues. The examiner strongly recommends amending the claims to use the same naming schemes as the specification, specifically with respect to the wavefronts.
Applicant’s arguments (see remarks, filed 01/21/26, page 10) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 14-16 under 102 and 4-13 and 17-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20240288379A1 by Krasnov.
Specifically the examiner agrees that Nicholson does not teach at least "first plurality of light detectors" as recited in claims 1 and 15. However, the examiner notes Nicholson does teach one or more photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]) which does appear to provide a suggestion for using more detectors. Further, the examiner notes that Smeeton (US20220043394A1; previously cited) does teach still an array of detectors for a fault detector, and although it was not relied upon to teach the new limitation in this rejection, it is still close art and could be used to modify Nicholson.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “a further intensity” in line 2, however it appears the claim should read “an intensity” similar to claim 8 where the all instances of “further” has been removed.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the second plurality of light detectors comprises second array of detectors” which should read “wherein the second plurality of light detectors comprises an array of detectors.” This is because there is not a “first array of detectors” recited in the intervening claims, so there is no need to specify it as “a second 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.
Claim 2-11 and 17-20 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 claims 2, 3, and 6, the claims recite determining the defect based on “the measured intensity.” However, it is unclear what intensity this is referring to? Claim 1 no longer recites “to measure an intensity” and instead recites “to measure a respective intensity.” The respective intensity refers to measurements made by each individual detector in the first plurality of detector, not a single measured intensity. Is the measured intensity one of these measurements? Is it an average or a combination? Further, claim 6 recites “a measured intensity of a residual portion of one of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront” which appears to be the same as the “respective intensity “ from claim 1 since claim 4 recites that the intermediate wavefront is the input wavefront. For the purposes of examination, “the measured intensity” is interpreted to refer to any intensity measured by the first plurality of detectors.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the claims recites that the “third surface is partially transmissive-reflective.” However, this appears to contradict the applicant’s specification ([0128]) with reads “The second waveguide 612 also provides waveguiding of the intermediate wavefront by internal reflection between a third surface 614 and a fourth surface 616 positioned opposite to the third surface 614. The third surface 614 comprises a second input port where the plurality of intermediate wavefronts are received. The fourth surface 616 is partially transmissive reflective and the third surface 614 is reflective. The second input port may be optically transparent or partially transmissive reflective.” Is the claim intended to recite that the second input port or fourth surface is partially transmissive reflective? There does not appear to be an embodiment in which the third surface with the second input port is partially transmissive reflective. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted such that either the third surface, fourth surface, or second input port is partially transmissive-reflective. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the examiner is confused by “wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront” in the first line. This appears to just be a renaming of the input wavefront and not a new wavefront. In claim 1, the first waveguide receives “an input wavefront”, then in claim 4, the input wavefront is "an intermediate input wavefront". The second waveguide receives “an initial input wavefront”. The second waveguide outputs the intermediate input wavefront which comprises one or more replicas of the initial input wavefront. How is the intermediate input wavefront both the input wavefront and replicas of the initial input wavefront? How does the second waveguide output the intermediate input wavefront if it received the initial input wavefront? The examiner suggests amending all claims to reflect the same language used in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the wavefronts are interpreted as they appear in the applicant’s Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0127]-[0128] which use the terms: first wavefront, intermediate wavefront, and second wavefront. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 17 specifically, the claim recites “outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide towards the first surface of the first waveguide” in the last line. The applicant does not appear to explain this limitation in the remarks, and the examiner is still confused on how the third surface outputs the initial input wavefront towards the first surface. There does not appear to be any details on how the initial input wavefront is output towards the first surface on the first waveguide. Further, the applicant’s speciation recites [0128] “The second waveguide 612 outputs a plurality of second wavefronts/wavefront replicas from fourth surface 616 towards an eye-box so that a viewer in the eye-box receives one or more of the plurality of wavefront replicas.” In reference to the previous annotated applicant’s Fig. 6, it would appear that the fourth surface which is partially transmissive-reflective outputs the further input wavefront in the substantially y direction, or a further perpendicular surface outputs a residual further input wavefront in a substantially x direction. The examiner is unsure if either of these outputs would correspond to the input wavefront output towards the first surface. The examiner recommends that the claims be amended to more clearly correspond with the details described in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “outputting the further input wavefront from the further second surface. “ Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “measure the intensity of the residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront” which should read “measure an intensity of the residual portion of the intermediate input wavefront” since it is the first recitation of this intensity. Further, the claims recites “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”. If the intermediate wavefront is the input wavefront (claim 4 line 1) and claim 1 recites measuring a respective intensity of a residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide, where the corresponding replica wavefront are replicas are of the input wavefront, is claim 5 not measuring the intensity of the same replicas? Are the residual portion of each of the replicas of the intermediate input wavefront different than the residual portion of a corresponding replica wavefronts of the input wavefront? For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted to measure and residual portion of a wavefront exiting the first waveguide. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the second waveguide has an elongated shape and the first waveguide has a planar shape.” Although the applicant amended the claim to recite “first” and “second” waveguide, it still appears that the order is reversed. The examiner believes the claim was intended to recite “wherein the first waveguide has an elongated shape and the second waveguide has a planar shape.” Otherwise, the claim does not make sense when compared to the drawings or specification. This is supported by the Fig. 5, 6 and applicant’s specification [0104] (“the first replicator 504 is a waveguide comprising a pair of elongate rectilinear reflective surfaces”; “second replicator may be a solid planar rectangular shaped waveguide”). For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein the first waveguide has an elongated shape and the second waveguide has a planar shape.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-11 and 18-20 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 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson (US20210109353A1; previously cited) in view of US20240288379A1 by Krasnov (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholson teaches light engine configured to detect a defect (at least Fig. 2, 3, 4 and 8; [0010] optical path faults), wherein the light engine comprises:
a first waveguide (light guide 204), wherein the first waveguide comprises (i) a first surface that is partially transmissive-reflective (surface 216; [0049]; surface 216 is partially transmissive-reflective since it transmits light from through couplers 208 and 212 and exit pupil expander 228, and reflects other light) and ), and (ii) a second surface opposite to the first surface (surface 220; [0049; surfaces 216, 220 are opposed surfaces]) shows;
wherein the first waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a first input port, a wavefront ([0050] In-coupler 208 may be positioned at or proximate a portion of front surface 216 at input region 204) , and (ii) provide waveguiding of the input wavefront by internal reflection ([0050] encourage propagation of light by TIR) between the first and second surfaces thereby replicating the input wavefront along a first replication direction (Fig. 2 shows internal reflection and replication direction to the left; [0053]); and
a light detector positioned along an edge of the first waveguide to measure an intensity of a residual portion of a 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]).
Nicholson is silent as to a first plurality of light detectors positioned along an edge of the first waveguide in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along the first replication direction, 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, Nicholson teaches one or more photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]). Additionally, the photodetector 184 is positioned according to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along the first replication direction since it is positioned according to the optical paths inside the light guide.
Further, Krasnov does address this limitation. Krasnov and Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical defect detection.
Krasnov teaches (at least Fig. 1a and 4a) a first plurality of light detectors (detectors 20; [0114]) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide (windshield [0114]) in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefronts along the first direction (Fig. 1a shows detectors are arranged to correspond with light rays from LED array 10; [0099]), 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 wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide ([0022] " The intensity of light from each light emitter is read from the corresponding photodiode located on the opposite edge of the glazing and recorded"; [0103]).
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 plurality of detectors in a pattern to measure wavefronts exiting a 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to replace the light detector with a first plurality of light detectors positioned along an edge of the first waveguide in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along the first replication direction, 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 Krasnov in order to make a more robust measurement lightguide fracture detection of that allows more coverage of the lightguide (Nicholson [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the light engine of claim 1, and further teaches comprising a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]) communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detectors ([0064]), wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on the measured intensity ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the light engine of claim 2, and 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 ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold) or (ii) an expected intensity.
Regarding claim 12, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the light engine of claim 1, but Nicholson does explicitly not teach in this embodiment a control device, wherein the control device comprises at least one aperture arranged to be switchable between a light transmissive state and a light non-transmissive state, 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 this embodiment.
However, Nicholson does address this limitation in a separate embodiment.
Nicholson teaches a control device (shutter; [0087]; applicant describes control device as a shuttering device in [0124]), wherein the control device comprises at least one aperture ([0087] a shutter would inherently comprise at least one aperture) arranged to be switchable between a light transmissive state and a light non-transmissive state ([0087] "a test light generated for OPF testing will reach the lightguide of display combiner 200 only if… a shutter is used at the front end of the temple, the shutter is not in a closed position"; where OPF is optical path fault; thus the shutter is an aperture that is switchable between a light transmissive open state and a light non-transmissive closed state) , wherein the light engine is arranged such that the input wavefront passes through the at least one aperture prior to being received at the input port ([0087] light must pass through temple arm and shutter to teach display combiner 200 which contains input coupler 208 as shown in Fig. 3 and 15).
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 control device such as a shutter to control light sent to the input port. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include a control device, wherein the control device comprises at least one aperture arranged to be switchable between a light transmissive state and a light non-transmissive state, 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 this embodiment in order to avoid potential spilling of laser light to the environment thus preventing unwanted visual effects or damage ([0087]).
Regarding claim 13, Nicholson modified by Krasnov above teaches the light engine of claim 12, and Nicholson further teaches comprising a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]), 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 ([0087] the OPF testing is only performed when the shutter is in a light transmissive state, otherwise, there is no test light to determine a defect; further 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”).
Regarding claim 14, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the light engine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
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 first plurality light detector is optically coupled to the third surface (Fig. 2 and 8 shows detector 184 at perimeter surface; [0046]; [0063]; see claim 1 above for modification).
Regarding claim 15, Nicholson teaches a method for determining a defect in a light engine (at least Fig. 2, 3, 4, and 8; [0010] optical path faults; [0040] light engine 116), the method comprising:
receiving, on a first input port (In-coupler 208) on a first surface (front surface 216 ) of a first waveguide (light guide 204), an input wavefront (light input into coupler 208), the first surface being partially transmissive-reflective ([0049]-[0050] In-coupler 208 may be positioned at or proximate a portion of front surface 216 at input region 204; surface 216 is partially transmissive-reflective since it transmits light from through couplers 208 and 212 and exit pupil expander 228, and reflects other light);
providing waveguiding of the input wavefront by internal reflection ([0050] encourage propagation of the light by TIR) of the input wavefront between the first surface and a second surface (surface 220; [0049]) of the first waveguide, wherein the second surface of the first waveguide is positioned opposite to the first surface of the first waveguide (Fig. 2 shows internal reflection and replication direction to the left; [0053]); and
measuring, by a light detector (photodetector 184) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide ([0046]), an intensity of a residual portion of the input wavefront after waveguiding has been provided by the first waveguide (photodetector 184; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]), wherein the light detector is positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of a replica wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide ([0046]; [0063]).
Nicholson is silent as to measuring, by a first plurality of light detectors positioned along an edge of the first waveguide in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along a first replication direction, 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, Nicholson teaches one or more photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]). Additionally, the photodetector 184 is positioned according to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along the first replication direction since it is positioned according to the optical paths inside the light guide.
Further, Krasnov does address this limitation. Krasnov and Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical defect detection.
Krasnov teaches (at least Fig. 1a and 4a) a first plurality of light detectors (detectors 20; [0114]) positioned along an edge of the first waveguide (windshield [0114]) in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefronts along the first direction (Fig. 1a shows detectors are arranged to correspond with light rays from LED array 10; [0099]), 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 wavefront exiting the edge of the first waveguide after waveguiding is provided by the first waveguide ([0022] " The intensity of light from each light emitter is read from the corresponding photodiode located on the opposite edge of the glazing and recorded"; [0103]).
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 plurality of detectors in a pattern to measure wavefronts exiting a 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to replace the single detector with a first plurality of light detectors and include measuring, by a first plurality of light detectors positioned along an edge of the first waveguide in a pattern corresponding to a spatial distribution of wavefront replicas of the input wavefront along a first replication direction, 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 Krasnov in order to make a more robust measurement lightguide fracture detection of that allows more coverage of the lightguide (Nicholson [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches determining, by a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]) communicatively coupled to the first plurality of light detector ([0064]), the defect based on the measured intensity by comparing the measured intensity with a threshold intensity ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold).
Claims 4-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson in view of Krasnov as applied to claim 1 and 15 above and further in view of US20120002256A1 by Lacoste et al. (hereinafter "Lacoste").
Regarding claim 4, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the light engine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein teaches a first (optical path 232) and second optical path (optical path 236) that appear to be in perpendicular directions (Fig. 8; [0063]). Further, it appears the exit pupil expander (EPE) 228 outputs light from the first optical path 232 to the coupler 212 and second optical path 236 in a similar way as the claimed invention in order to produce 2 dimensional images (Fig. 3; [0052] In FIG. 3, EPE 228 is located to the right of out-coupler 212 and below in-coupler 208, which means that light will go down from input region 204 a (in FIG. 4) and then turn left towards out-coupler 212.) Additionally, Nicholson teaches dual exit pupil expanders in a different embodiment (Fig. 6, Fig. 9; [0061]).
However, Nicholson does not explicitly teach wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront a further waveguide, 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 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 Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of image replication.
Lacoste teaches (at least Fig. 6a-c; see annotated Fig. 6c below); [0103] pair of stacked pupil expanders 600)
a first waveguide, wherein the first waveguide comprises (i) a first surface that is partially transmissive-reflective, and (ii) a second surface opposite to the first surface ([0103] first image replicator);
wherein the first waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a first input port, an input wavefront, 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 (see annotated figure; Fig. 6a shows internal reflection);
wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront (this appears to just be a naming convention and does not add a limitation),
a second waveguide that is upstream the first waveguide(second image replicator), wherein the second waveguide comprises: (i) a third surface that is partially transmissive-reflective (see annotated Fig. 6c; [0103] apertures 602 make the surface partially transmissive-reflective), and (ii) a fourth surface positioned opposite to the further first surface (see annotated Fig. 6c and Fi. 6a, the fourth surface is partially transmissive-reflective); and
wherein the second waveguide is configured to: (i) receive, on a second input port on the third surface ([0103] apertures 602 act as input ports), an initial input wavefront (see annotated figure), (ii) provide waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection between the third and fourth surfaces (Fig. 6a), thereby replicating the initial input wavefront along a second replication direction ([0103] "each output beam from the first image replicator is itself replicated by a second image replicator"), where the second replication direction is perpendicular to the first replication direction ([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 wavefront, wherein the intermediate wavefront comprises one or more replicas of the initial input wavefront ([0103]-[0104] annotated figure shows wavefront output from further second surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
938
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 Nicholson to include wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront a further waveguide, 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 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, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 4, but Nicholson and Lacoste 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.
However, Nicholson does teach the light detector positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of the input wavefront 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]) and further teaches another light detector at an additional location along the perimeter of the wave guide ([0063] Photodetectors 180, 184 would output signals that are representative of the amount (or intensity) of the light that reaches edge surface portions 225, 227 from corresponding optical paths 232, 236).
As 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., it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the light detector to measure an intensity output from the further waveguide instead of the first waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to include wherein the light detector 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 waveguide in order to determine if there are breaks in optical path, thus reducing error ([0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 4, and Nicholson further teaches comprising a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]) wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect based on the measured intensity ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold).
Nicholson does not explicitly teach to 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.
However, as Nicholson already teaches to determine the defect based on the measured intensity, using a measured intensity of a residual portion of one of the replicas of the further input wavefront would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is determining the defect based on the same type of data. Further, 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”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson 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 further input wavefront or (ii) a comparison of a measured intensity of one of the replicas of the further input wavefront and a residual portion of an adjacent replica of the further input wavefront in order to further detects faults and reduce error.
Regarding claim 7, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 4, and Nicholson further teaches wherein the first waveguide has an elongated shape (Fig. 2 and 4 show light guide 204 has an elongated shape). Further, Nicholson appears to teach that in Fig. 3 that the exit pupil expander (EPE) 228 has an elongated shape and coupler 212 has a planar shape ([0052]). It appears the EPE 228 outputs light from the first optical path 232 to the coupler 212 and second optical path 236 in a similar way as the claimed invention in order to produce 2 dimensional images ([0052]).
Nicholson does not explicitly teach wherein the second waveguide has a planar shape.
However, Lacoste does address this limitation.
Lacoste teaches wherein the first waveguide has an elongated shape (see annotated Fig.6c shows first waveguide is elongated) and the second waveguide has a planar shape (see annotated Fig.6c shows second waveguide is planar; [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 Nicholson such that the first waveguide has an elongated shape and the second waveguide has a planar shape in order to efficiently produce 2 dimensional images over a large area.
Regarding claim 8, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 4, and although Nicholson does not explicitly teach further comprising a second plurality light detectors positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of the initial input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the second waveguide, Nicholson teaches at least two photodetectors 180, 184 and that the number of photodetectors will generally depend on the number of optical paths within the lightguide that are to be monitored ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]).
Further, Krasnov does address this limitation.
Krasnov teaches a second plurality light detectors positioned to measure an intensity of a residual wavefront (Fig. 2b, shows two sets of detector 20 arrays in perpendicular directions; [0102]; [0022] intensity is read by detectors).
Thus, 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 Nicholson 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 further waveguide as suggested by Krasnov in order to further monitor the optical path to reduce error.
Regarding claim 9, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 4, and Nicholson as modified by Krasnov teaches wherein the first plurality of light detector comprises an array of detectors (Krasnov Fig. 1a shows array of detectors 20 which replaced photodetector of Nicholson, see claim 1). 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 arrange a plurality of detectors as an array of detectors in order to accurately perform measurements
Regarding claim 10, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 9, and Nicholson is silent wherein each detector of the array of detectors is positioned to receive a respective residual portion of the further input wavefront.
However, Krasnov does address this limitation.
Krasnov teaches wherein each detector of the array of detectors is positioned to receive a respective residual portion of a wavefront ([0022] " The intensity of light from each light emitter is read from the corresponding photodiode located on the opposite edge of the glazing and recorded"; [0103]).
Thus, 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 Nicholson such that wherein each detector of the array of detectors is positioned to receive a respective residual portion of the further input wavefront as suggested by Krasnov in order to isolate each detector to reduce measurement error and increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the light engine of claim 9, and Nicholson further teaches comprising a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]) wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect ([0064] fault).
Nicholson is silent as to wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect based on which detector in the array of detectors detected the defect.
However, Krasnov does address this limitation.
Krasnov teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect based on which detector in the array of detectors detected the defect ([0108] “By comparing the detected light intensity values to previous ones, it can be determined if the change is permanent or temporary and it can also be estimated the severity and location of the damage on the glazing.”; [0104] signals from the detectors are read and stored in a processing unit programmed to execute detection, location, and classification algorithms) .
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correlate a detector in the array of detectors with a location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to include wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the defect based on which detector in the array of detectors detected the defect as suggested by Krasnov in order to increase the precision of the defect detection.
Regarding claim 17, Nicholson modified by Krasnov teaches the method of claim 15, and Nicholson further teaches a first (optical path 232) and second optical path (optical path 236) that appear to be in perpendicular directions (Fig. 8; [0063]). Further, it appears the exit pupil expander (EPE) 228 outputs light from the first optical path 232 to the coupler 212 and second optical path 236 in a similar way as the claimed invention in order to produce 2 dimensional images (Fig. 3; [0052] In FIG. 3, EPE 228 is located to the right of out-coupler 212 and below in-coupler 208, which means that light will go down from input region 204 a (in FIG. 4) and then turn left towards out-coupler 212.) Additionally, Nicholson teaches dual exit pupil expanders in a different embodiment (Fig. 6, Fig. 9; [0061]).
However, Nicholson does not explicitly teach wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, on a second input port on third first surface of a second 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 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 Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of image replication.
Lacoste teaches (at least Fig. 6a-c; see annotated Fig. 6c above; [0103] pair of stacked pupil expanders 600)
receiving, on an input port on a first surface of a first waveguide, an input wavefront, the first surface being partially transmissive-reflective (Fig. 6a; [0103] first image replicator; see annotated Fig. 6c above);
providing waveguiding of the input wavefront by internal reflection of the input wavefront between the first surface and a second surface of the waveguide positioned opposite to the first surface (see annotated figure; Fig. 6a shows internal reflection);
wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate input wavefront (this appears to just be a naming convention and does not add a limitation),
receiving, on a second input port ([0103] apertures 602 act as input ports) on a third surface of a second waveguide, an initial input wavefront, the third surface being partially transmissive-reflective (Fig. 6a. apertures 602 make the surface partially transmissive-reflective);
providing waveguiding of the initial input wavefront by internal reflection of the initial input wavefront between (Fig. 6s shows internal reflection) the third surface and a fourth surface (see annotated Fig. 6c and Fi. 6a, the further second surface is partially transmissive-reflective), wherein the fourth surface of the further waveguide positioned opposite to the further first surface (Fig. 6c shows surfaces are positioned opposite to each other; [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
outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide ([0103]-[0104]; see annotated figure; further second surface outputs wavefronts).
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 Nicholson to include wherein the input wavefront is an intermediate wavefront, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, on a second input port on third first surface of a second 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 positioned opposite to the third surface; and outputting the initial input wavefront from the third surface of the second waveguide as suggested by Lacoste in order to efficiently expand a two-dimensional image provided to the display ([0102]).
Regarding claim 18, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 17, but Nicholson and Lacoste does not explicitly teach measuring, by a second plurality of light detectors, a further 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
However, Nicholson does teach the light detector positioned to measure an intensity of a residual portion of the wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the waveguide (photodetector 180; [0046] photodetectors positioned to detect light emitted at selected positions on the perimeter of lightguide 204; [0063]) wherein determining the defect is based on the measured intensity ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold) . Nicholson further teaches another light detector at an additional location along the perimeter of the wave guide ([0063] Photodetectors 180, 184 would output signals that are representative of the amount (or intensity) of the light that reaches edge surface portions 225, 227 from corresponding optical paths 232, 236) and that the number of photodetectors will generally depend on the number of optical paths within the lightguide that are to be monitored ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]).
Further, Krasnov does address this limitation.
Krasnov teaches a second plurality light detectors positioned to measure an intensity of a residual wavefront (Fig. 2b, shows two sets of detector 20 arrays in perpendicular directions; [0102]; [0022] intensity is read by detectors).
Therefore 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 Nicholson to include measuring, by a further light detector, a further intensity of a residual portion of the further input wavefront after waveguiding is provided by the further waveguide, wherein determining the defect is based on the measured further intensity of the further input wavefront in order to monitor the optical path to reduce error.
Regarding claim 19, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 17, and although Nicholson teaches wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with a threshold intensity which could be considered an expected intensity ([0064] an optical path within the lightguide is considered to have a fault if an intensity detected by the photodetector associated with the optical path is below an associated threshold), Nicholson does not explicitly teach wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity; 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.
However, Krasnov does address these limitations.
Krasnov teaches wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity ([0108] “By comparing the detected light intensity values to previous ones, it can be determined if the change is permanent or temporary and it can also be estimated the severity and location of the damage on the glazing.”).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity to determine a defect or fault in the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to include wherein determining the defect comprises at least one of: comparing the measured intensity with an expected intensity as suggested by Krasnov in order to quickly and efficiently determine faults, thus reducing error.
Regarding claim 20, Nicholson modified by Krasnov and Lacoste teaches the method of claim 18, and Nicholson does not explicitly teach wherein the second plurality of light detector comprises a second 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.
However, Nicholson teaches at least two photodetectors 180, 184 and that the number of photodetectors will generally depend on the number of optical paths within the lightguide that are to be monitored ([0046]) and that the greater the number of optical paths monitored, the more robust may be the lightguide fracture detection as it would allow more coverage of the lightguide ([0075]). Additionally, Nicholson teaches comprising a processor (laser safety circuit 172; [0064]) wherein the processor is configured to determine the defect ([0064] fault).
Further, Krasnov does address this limitation.
Krasnov teaches wherein the second plurality of light detector comprises a second array of detectors (Krasnov Fig. 2b shows array of detectors 20), wherein individual detectors in the second array of detectors are positioned to receive a respective replica of a wavefront ([0022] " The intensity of light from each light emitter is read from the corresponding photodiode located on the opposite edge of the glazing and recorded"; [0103]) , and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by a processor, a location of the defect based on the second array of detectors ([0108] “By comparing the detected light intensity values to previous ones, it can be determined if the change is permanent or temporary and it can also be estimated the severity and location of the damage on the glazing.”; [0104] signals from the detectors are read and stored in a processing unit programmed to execute detection, location, and classification algorithms).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second array of detectors to determine the location of a defect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nicholson to include wherein the second plurality of light detector comprises a second 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 Krasnov in order to further monitor and isolate the optical paths to reduce error and increase the precision of the defect detection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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