DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 23, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments/remarks have not overcome the USC 112(f) invocation. Applicant has not provided a sufficient showing that the claim recite sufficient structure to perform the function. Examiner reminds Applicant that “[a]pplication of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d at 1194, 29 USPQ2d at 1850” (MPEP 2181). In the instant case, Applicant’s claim language satisfies the 3-prong analysis (MPEP 2181.I). The claim recites a nonce term: system (Prong A); the nonce term is modified by functional language: eye tracking…to determine (Prong B); and the nonce term is not modified by sufficient structure (Prong C).
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the outstanding USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 17, 20 have not overcome the art of Landig. Specifically, Landig teaches at least in-couplers (1302-1, 1302-2) are adjustable reflectors. Such in-couplers being “outside” of the outcoupler (1303-1, 1303-2).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) an eye tracking system to determine…in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 24 is 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.
As to claim 24, the claim recites “the exit pupil expander” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 24, the claim recites “other adjustable reflectors in the second set of adjustable reflectors” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 24, the claim recites “other adjustable reflectors in the first set of adjustable reflectors” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 24, the claim recites “reflectors in the exit pupil expander…closer to the incoupler have a lower reflectivity than…reflectors in the second set of…reflectors…farther from the incoupler…reflectors in the second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler…closer to the exit pupil expander…have a lower reflectivity than…other adjustable reflectors in the first set of…reflectors…positioned farther from the exit pupil expander” which is unclear what reflectors have the lower reflectivity (MPEP 2173). Specifically, as per Applicant’s specification, claim 24 appears directed to Figure 4 and para. [0036] whereby the reflectors (418) of expander (416) have lower reflectivity when closer to incoupler (422), while reflectors (428) of outcoupler (424) have lower reflectivity when closer to expander (416), however the language of the claim as written appears to rearrange which reflectors of which expander/outcoupler are lower in reflectivity. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim as consistent with para. [0036] and Figure 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Landig et al. (US 2023/0367073 - Landig; of record).
As to claim 1, Landig teaches an eyewear device (Landig Figs. 13, 15, 16), comprising
a waveguide (Landig Fig. 13 - 1300, 1301-1, 1301-2; para. [0089]) comprising a first set of adjustable reflectors outside of an outcoupler of the waveguide (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]; Fig. 7 - 704A, 704B; Landig Figs. 14A, B; para. [0094], [0095]);
and a controller (Landig Fig. 4 - 431) configured to send a control signal to a subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-1).
As to claim 3, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the control signal is based on a type of content generated for display by the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-1, 1350; para. [0092]).
As to claim 4, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Landig further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]),
wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]), and
the controller is configured to send a second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0059], [0061]).
As to claim 8, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches an eye tracking system to determine at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]), and the controller configured to send the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; para. [0063]; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 9, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Landig further teaches the subset of adjustable reflectors is operated in the second state to reflect light toward a pupil position based on the at least one of the position or the orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; Figs. 5A, B - 521, 522, 505; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 10, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the controller is configured to generate the control signal based on an interpupillary distance of a user of the eyewear display (Landig para. [0044], [0070]).
As to claim 11, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflector comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of cholesteric liquid crystals in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of CLCs in the CLC layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 13, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflectors comprises a switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 16, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the portion of light reflected by the adjustable reflectors in the second state is adjustable (Landig para. [0049]).
As to claim 17, Landig teaches a method for controlling display light in an eyewear display (Landig Landig Figs. 13, 15, 16), comprising
sending, from a controller (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0061]) of the eyewear, a control signal to a subset of a first set of adjustable reflectors outside of a waveguide of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]), and
switching, for each adjustable reflector in the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors, between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]; Fig. 7 - 704A, 704B; Landig Figs. 14A, B; para. [0094], [0095]) and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of display light thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]; Fig. 7 - 704A, 704B; Landig Figs. 14A, B; para. [0094], [0095]).
As to claim 18, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Landig further teaches determining, at an eye tracking system (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]) of the eyewear display, at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]), and generating at the controller, the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; para. [0063]; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 20, Landig teaches a waveguide (Landig Fig. 13) comprising
a first set of adjustable reflectors outside of an outcoupler of the waveguide (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]) wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-2; para. [0035], [0089], [0090]; Fig. 7 - 704A, 704B; Landig Figs. 14A, B; para. [0094], [0095]).
As to claim 22, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Landig further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]),
wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]).
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 16-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Kollin et al. (US 2023/0244077 - Kollin).
As to claim 1, Kollin teaches an eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 1) comprising
a waveguide (Kollin Fig. 2A - 200A; Fig. 5B - 520) comprising
a first set of adjustable reflectors (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; [0042], [0048] - additionally or alternatively to diffractive controllable output coupling elements, in other examples, controllable refractive or reflective output coupling elements may be utilized in a dynamically controllable output coupling element) outside of an outcoupler of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B; para. [0040] - reflectors (524) are outside outcoupler (526)), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 530A, 530B; para. [0045], [0042]; Examiner’s note: Figure 5B appears to have a typographical error relative to para. [0042] where the set of reflectors for (524) are mislabeled as (532A, 532B) and should be (530A, 530B));
and a controller (Kollin Fig. 2 - 202) configured to send a control signal to a subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Kollin Fig. 5B; Figs. 6A-F; Fig. 7).
As to claim 2, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), wherein the exit pupil expander is configured to receive light from an incoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 522) of the waveguide, expand the light along a first dimension (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526).
As to claim 3, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches the control signal is based on a type of content generated for display by the eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 7).
As to claim 4, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Kollin further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526; para. [0042], [0048]),
wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 532A, 532B; para. [0042], [0045], [0048]), and
the controller is configured to send a second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526, 532A, 532B; para. [0042], [0045]).
As to claim 8, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches an eye tracking system to determine at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 3 - 315; para. [0029), and the controller configured to send the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Kollin Fig. 7; para. [0029]).
As to claim 9, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Kollin further teaches the subset of adjustable reflectors is operated in the second state to reflect light toward a pupil position based on the at least one of the position or the orientation of the eye (Kollin Figs. 6A-F, 7).
As to claim 10, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches the controller is configured to generate the control signal based on an interpupillary distance of a user of the eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 3; Figs. 4A,B; para. [0037]).
As to claim 11, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflector comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Kollin para. [0046]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of cholesteric liquid crystals in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Kollin para. [0045]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of CLCs in the CLC layer (Kollin para. [0045], [0046]).
As to claim 16, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kollin further teaches the portion of light reflected by the adjustable (Kollin para. [0048], [0045]).
As to claim 17, Kollin teaches a method for controlling display light in an eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 1), comprising
sending, from a controller of the eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 2A - 202), a control signal to a subset of a first set of adjustable reflectors (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 530A, 530B; para. [0048], [0042]) outside an outcoupler of a waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 526) of the eyewear display;
switching, for each adjustable reflector in the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors, between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of display light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 530A, 530B; para. [0045], [0042], [0048]).
As to claim 18, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Kollin further teaches determining, at an eye tracking system of the eyewear display, at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Kollin Fig. 3 - 315; para. [0029), and generating, at the controller, the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Kollin Fig. 7; para. [0029]).
As to claim 19, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Kollin further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), wherein the exit pupil expander is configured to receive light from an incoupler of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B - 522), expand the light along a first dimension (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526), the method further comprising
sending, from the controller, a second control signal to a subset of a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526, 532A, 532B; para. [0042]) and
switching, for each adjustable reflector in the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors, between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526, 532A, 532B; para. [0042], [0045], [0048]).
As to claim 20, Kollin teaches a waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B) comprising a first set of adjustable reflectors (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; [0042], [0048] - additionally or alternatively to diffractive controllable output coupling elements, in other examples, controllable refractive or reflective output coupling elements may be utilized in a dynamically controllable output coupling element) outside of an outcoupler of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B; para. [0040] - reflectors (524) are outside outcoupler (526)), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 530A, 530B; para. [0045], [0042]; Examiner’s note: Figure 5B appears to have a typographical error relative to para. [0042] where the set of reflectors for (524) are mislabeled as (532A, 532B) and should be (530A, 530B)).
As to claim 21, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Kollin further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander of the waveguide (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), wherein the exit pupil expander is configured to receive light from an incoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 522) of the waveguide, expand the light along a first dimension (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524; para. [0040]), and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526).
As to claim 22, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kollin further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 526; para. [0042], [0048]),
wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Kollin Fig. 5B - 532A, 532B; para. [0042], [0045], [0048]).
As to claim 24, Kollin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Kollin further teaches adjustable reflectors in the first set of adjustable reflectors in the exit pupil expander that are positioned closer to the incoupler have a lower reflectivity than other adjustable reflectors in the second set of adjustable reflectors that are positioned farther from the incoupler (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 522; para. [0034] - teaching tapering the efficiency (reflectivity) in an increasing manner from the incoupler/input) and wherein the adjustable reflectors in the second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler that are positioned closer to the exit pupil expander have a lower reflectivity than other adjustable reflectors in the first set of adjustable reflectors that are positioned farther from the exit pupil expander (Kollin Fig. 5B - 524, 526; para. [0034] - teaching tapering the efficiency (reflectivity) in an increasing manner from the incoupler/input).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Natarajan et al. (US 6,821,457 - Natarajan).
As to claim 20, Natarajan teaches a waveguide (Natarajan Figs. 25, 26) comprising
a first set of adjustable reflectors (Natarajan Fig. 22; Fig. 25 - input HOE; col. 4:11-15; col. 14:13-23; Fig. 26 - Input I0; col. 20:11-15) outside of an outcoupler of the waveguide (Natarajan Fig. 23; Fig. 24; Fig. 25 - output HOE; Fig. 26 - I1-I9), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Natarajan Figs. 25, 26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US 2024/0192427 - Lam; of record) in view of Landig (cited above).
As to claim 1, Lam teaches an eyewear display (Lam Figs. 2, 3) comprising
a waveguide (Lam Fig. 8A - 802) comprising
a first set of reflectors (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824; para. [0096], [0090]) outside of an outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 830).
While Lam teaches the reflectors are transflective (Lam para. [0090]) Lam doesn’t specify adjusting the reflection/transmission/transparency via a controller.
In the same field of endeavor Landig teaches an eyewear display with adjustable reflectors and a controller to control the adjustable reflectors to operating in a first transparent state and a second reflecting a portion state (Landig Figs 1A - 103; para. [0048]; Fig. 4 - 431).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such reflectivity/transmissivity control since, as taught by Landig, such controllable reflectivity allows for tuning the spatial distribution of light in such displays (Landig para. [0035]).
As to claim 2, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lam further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824) of the waveguide, wherein the exit pupil expander is configured to receive light from an incoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 810), expand the light along a first dimension (Lam Fig. 8A 0 822, 824) and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 820, 830).
As to claim 3, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the control signal is based on a type of content generated for display by the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 13 - 1302-1, 1302-1, 1350; para. [0092]).
As to claim 4, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Lam/Landig further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 830; Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]),
wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]), and
the controller is configured to send a second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0059], [0061]).
As to claim 6, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lam further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors (Lam Fig. 8A - 824) is located between an exit pupil expander of the waveguide and the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824, 830; para. [0096], [0098]), wherein the exit pupil exapander (Lam Fig. 8A - 822) is configured to receive light from an incoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 810), expand the light long a first dimension (Lam Fig. 8A 0 822; para. [0098]) and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824, 830).
As to claim 7, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Lam further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors arranged and adjacent to the first set of adjustable reflectors between the exit pupil expander and the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 824; para. [0096] - teaching the set of reflectors (824) having a plurality, thus any plurality can be divided into any two or more sets, the sets being between expander (822) and outcoupler (824)), wherein each adjustable reflectors of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0089], [0091]), and
the controller is configured to send a second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0059], [0061]).
As to claim 8, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches an eye tracking system to determine at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]), and the controller configured to send the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; para. [0063]; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 9, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Landig further teaches the subset of adjustable reflectors is operated in the second state to reflect light toward a pupil position based on the at least one of the position or the orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; Figs. 5A, B - 521, 522, 505; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 10, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the controller is configured to generate the control signal based on an interpupillary distance of a user of the eyewear display (Landig para. [0044], [0070]).
As to claim 11, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflector comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of cholesteric liquid crystals in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of CLCs in the CLC layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 13, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflectors comprises a switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 16, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the portion of light reflected by the adjustable reflectors in the second state is adjustable (Landig para. [0049]).
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0049872 - Peng; of record).
As to claims 12, 14, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 11, 13, but doesn’t specify the first set of adjustable reflectors comprises a passive cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to reflect light having a first polarization state and transmit light having a second polarization state different than the first polarization state.
In the same field of endeavor Peng teaches switchable reflectors for eyewear displays (Peng Fig. 3; Figs. 17A, 17B) a passive cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to reflect light having a first polarization state and transmit light having a second polarization state different than the first polarization state (Peng Figs. 17A-B - 1714; para. [0130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a passive CLC layer since such layers are well known in the art as components of switchable polarization sensitive reflectors reflecting and/or transmitting the desired polarization (Peng Figs. 17A-B - 1714; para. [0130]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al (US 20017/0184894 - Hayashi; of record).
As to claim 15, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide, wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state.
In the same field of endeavor Hayashi teaches eyewear devices with a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 50, 51, 52), wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52) whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52; Fig. 15A - 51, 52, Fig. 15B - 51, 52; para. [0114]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such dimmer since, as taught by Hayashi, such dimmer allows for controlling the transmittances of the world based on the field of view (FOV) and improving contrast of the images (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52; Fig. 15A - 51, 52, Fig. 15B - 51, 52; para. [0114]-[0118]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alton et al. (US 2015/0309312 - Alton).
As to claim 15, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide, wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state.
In the same field of endeavor Alton teaches eyewear with a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of a waveguide (Alton Fig. 2A - 204, 202, 112; para. [0027]) wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on a subset of adjustable reflective elements (Alton Fig. 2A - 112; para. [0026]) operating in a transparent or not transparent state (Alton Fig. 2A - 204, 112; Fig. 2B - 204, 112; para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such dimming module since, as taught by Alton, such dimming modules allow for matching the transparent state of the waveguide so as to improve/maintain contrast (Alton para. [0027], [0033]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam in view of Landig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alton et al. (US 2015/0309312 - Alton).
As to claim 15, Lam in view of Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide, wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state.
In the same field of endeavor Alton teaches eyewear with a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of a waveguide (Alton Fig. 2A - 204, 202, 112; para. [0027]) wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on a subset of adjustable reflective elements (Alton Fig. 2A - 112; para. [0026]) operating in a transparent or not transparent state (Alton Fig. 2A - 204, 112; Fig. 2B - 204, 112; para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such dimming module since, as taught by Alton, such dimming modules allow for matching the transparent state of the waveguide so as to improve/maintain contrast (Alton para. [0027], [0033]).
Claims 19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claims 17, 20 above, and further in view of Lam (cited above).
As to claim 19, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and while Landig further teaches controlling subsets of reflectors between first transparent states and second reflective states (Landig Fig. 4 - 431), Landig doesn’t specify the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander, the expander configured to receive light from an incoupler of the waveguide, expand the light along a first dimension, and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler.
In the same field of endeavor Lam teaches waveguides with transflective reflectors in an exit pupil expander (Lam Fig. 8A - 820, 822, 824; para. [0096], [0098]) receiving light from an incoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 810), expand the light along a first dimension (Lam Fig. 8A - 820, 822, 824), and redirect the light to the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 820, 830).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such exit pupil expander since, as taught by Lam, such elements are well known in the art for expanding the light to form the field of view (Lam Fig. 8A; para. [0004]).
As to claim 23, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, but doesn’t specify the first set of adjustable reflectors is located between an exit pupil expander of the waveguide and the outcoupler, the exit pupil expander is configured to receive light from an incoupler of the waveguide, expand the light along a first dimension, and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler.
In the same field of endeavor Lam teaches waveguides having a first set of reflectors (Lam Fig. 8A - 824) is located between an exit pupil expander of the waveguide and the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824, 830; para. [0096], [0098]), wherein the exit pupil expander (Lam Fig. 8A - 822) is configured to receive light from an incoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 810), expand the light long a first dimension (Lam Fig. 8A 0 822; para. [0098]) and redirect the expanded light to the outcoupler (Lam Fig. 8A - 822, 824, 830).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such exit pupil expander since, as taught by Lam, such elements are well known in the art for expanding the light to form the field of view (Lam Fig. 8A; para. [0004]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Amitai (US 2003/0165017 - Amitai).
As to claim 24 (as understood), Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Landig further teaches the adjustable reflectors in the second set of adjustable reflectors in the outcoupler that are positioned close to the exit pupil expander have a lower reflectivity than other adjustable reflectors in the first set of adjustable reflectors that are positioned farther from the exit pupil expander (Landig Fig. 6B - 603A, 603B, 603C, 603D; para. [0068]-[0070] - showing the reflectors closer to the in-coming side (left) which is closer to an incoupler/pupil expander of the outcoupler (611) having lower reflectivity than reflectors on the output (right)).
Landig doesn’t specify reflectors in the exit pupil positioned in closer to the incoupler have lower reflectivity than other reflectors in the second set of reflectors that are positioned farther from the incoupler.
In the same field of endeavor Amitai teaches a waveguide with incoupler (Amitai Fig. 13 - 20; Fig. 14) with exit pupil expander (Amitai Fig. 13 - 22a, 22b, 22c) and outcoupler (Amitai Fig. 13 - 22; Fig. 2 - 22; Fig. 7; Fig. 9; Fig. 14) where the reflectors of the exit pupil expander closer to the incoupler have lower reflectivity than reflector farther from the incoupler (Amitai Fig. 13 - 22a, 22b, 22b; para. [0102]) and the reflectors of the outcoupler closer to the exit pupil expander have lower reflectivity than reflectors farther from the exit pupil expander (Amitai para. [0097], [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such decreased reflectivity closer to the incoupler and/or exit pupil expander since, as taught by Amitai, such reflectivities allow for achieving uniform illumination efficiencies over the field of view (Amitai para. [0097], [0102]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lam et al. (US 12,085,717; 2023/0258937); Alton et al. (US 9,766,459); Amitai (US 6,829,095); Xu et al. (US 2024/0210611) are cited as additional examples of waveguides with reflectors.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights