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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Cancellation of Claims 1-20 in the submission filed 6/27/2024 is acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 21-40 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 21-40.
Drawings
The drawings with 5 Sheets of Figs. 1-6 received on 2/15/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract recites:
“The present invention features VHOEs with expanded” in line 1 and “In preferred embodiments, the two or more” in line 4. This is incorrect language and is suggested to be replaced with –VHOEs with expanded—and --The two mor more--
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21,23-28,31-34,36, 39-40, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 9,933,684 B2, of record).
Regarding Claim 21, Brown teaches (fig 2,4,9) an apparatus (transparent display, col 13, lines 38-39, systems applicable to a helmet mounted head worn display for use in Augmented Immersive Team training, col 1, lines 41-47), comprising:
an optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) characterized by a total range of acceptance angles (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7) for light incident on the optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101, the optical element (input grating DIGI-I, col 13, lines 39-50) comprising:
a first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a first diffraction efficiency and a first range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°, col 16, lines 4-7); and
a second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a second diffraction efficiency and a second range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is - 8.5° to 0), wherein:
the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (first and second SBGs of DIGI1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) are arranged according to an overlapping arrangement (“the two stacked DIGI-I gratings may be provided in each Digi Lens waveguide to increase the angular bandwidth”, col 16, lines 64-66),
the first range and the second range are offset relative to each other by an offset angle (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7, This implies that there is an offset angle between the two SBGs, the offset angle is around 4° (fig 9)) and the total range is formed by at least the first range and the second range (the sum of the acceptance angle range is around 20 deg as in Brown’s annotated fig 9), and
at a first incidence angle of the light (for instance at 0°) the first diffraction efficiency has a first value different from a second value of the second diffraction efficiency (for instance at 0°, the first dotted curve for SBG1 has a zero diffraction efficiency DE while the second dotted curve for SBG2 has a finite high value of DE, fig 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) includes a volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I, “Each waveguide has a switchable input grating”, col 13, lines 39-50, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8, DIGI-I is a VHOE),
wherein the first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) is formed in a first photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I which is a VHOE), and wherein the second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) is formed in a second photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I which is a VHOE) (DIGI-I is made of DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2 , each in a different waveguide as in fig 6 and hence in first and second photopolymer films).
Regarding Claim 24, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein at a second incidence angle (for instance at around -10°) of the incident light the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction efficiency have a same value (for instance at around -10°, the first dotted curve for SBG1 and the second dotted curve for SBG2 intersect and have a common high value of DE, fig 9).
Regarding Claim 25, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the first diffraction efficiency (diffraction efficiency of first SBG DIGI-I1 of DIGI-I, col 13) is greater than a threshold value upon the first incidence angle being within the first range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°), and wherein the second diffraction efficiency (diffraction efficiency of second SBG DIGI-I2 of DIGI-I, col 13) is smaller than the threshold value upon the first incidence angle being outside of the second range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to -8.5°) (Diffraction efficiency DE is maximum or greater than threshold value for incident angles in the range within the dotted curve corresponding to the SBG and falls to zero for incident angles outside the dotted curve. Hence when the incident angle for first SBG DIGI-I1 is within the range corresponding to SBG1, DE is greater than a threshold value, and when the incident angle for second SBG DIGI-I2 is outside the range corresponding to SBG2, DE is smaller than a threshold value, as in fig 9)
Regarding Claim 26, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 25,
wherein the first diffraction efficiency (diffraction efficiency of first SBG DIGI-I1 of DIGI-I, col 13) is smaller than the threshold value upon a second incidence angle of the incident light being outside of the first range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°), and wherein the second diffraction efficiency (diffraction efficiency of second SBG DIGI-I2 of DIGI-I, col 13) is greater than the threshold value upon the second incidence angle being within the second range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to -8.5°) (Diffraction efficiency DE is maximum or greater than threshold value for incident angles in the range within the dotted curve corresponding to the SBG and falls to zero for incident angles outside the dotted curve. Hence when the incident angle for second SBG DIGI-I2 is within the range corresponding to SBG2, DE is greater than a threshold value, and when the incident angle for first SBG DIGI-I1 is outside the range corresponding to SBG2, DE is smaller than a threshold value, as in fig 9).
Regarding Claim 27, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the first diffraction grating (first SBG DIGI-I1 of DIGI-I, col 13) is configured to diffract the incident light at a diffraction angle upon the first incidence angle being within the first range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°), and wherein the second diffraction grating (second SBG DIGI-I2 of DIGI-I, col 13) is configured to diffract the incident light at the diffraction angle upon a second incidence angle of the incident light being within the second range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to -8.5°) (Bragg gratings SBG diffract light at incident angles satisfying the Bragg angle or Bragg condition).
Regarding Claim 28, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the first range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°, col 16, lines 4-7) corresponds to a field of view of the optical element, and wherein the second range (range of acceptance angles is 0 to -8.5°, col 16, lines 4-7) corresponds to the field of view (overlapping bandwidths, col 16, lines 2-9, angular bandwidth correspond to field of view. See col 16, lines 2-20).
Regarding Claim 31, Brown teaches (fig 2,4,9) an augmented reality device (transparent display, col 13, lines 38-39, systems applicable to a helmet mounted head worn display for use in Augmented Immersive Team training, col 1, lines 41-47), comprising:
an optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101, col 13, lines 39-50); and
an optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) coupled with the optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101) and characterized by a total range of acceptance angles (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7) for light incident on the optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101, the optical element (input grating DIGI-I1, col 13, lines 39-50) comprising:
a first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a first diffraction efficiency and a first range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°); and
a second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a second diffraction efficiency and a second range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°), wherein:
the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (first and second SBGs of DIGI-I, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) are arranged according to an overlapping arrangement (“the two stacked DIGI-I gratings may be provided in each Digi Lens waveguide to increase the angular bandwidth”, col 16, lines 64-66),
the first range and the second range are offset relative to each other by an offset angle (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7, This implies that there is an offset angle between the two SBGs, the offset angle is around 4° (fig 9)) and the total range is formed by at least the first range and the second range (the sum of the acceptance angle range is around 20 deg as in Brown’s annotated fig 9), and
at a first incidence angle of the light (for instance at 0°) the first diffraction efficiency has a first value different from a second value of the second diffraction efficiency (for instance at 0°, the first dotted curve for SBG1 has a zero diffraction efficiency DE while the second dotted curve for SBG2 has a finite high value of DE, fig 9).
Regarding Claim 32, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 31,
wherein the optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) includes a volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I, “Each waveguide has a switchable input grating”, col 13, lines 39-50, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8, DIGI-I is a VHOE),
wherein the first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) includes a first Bragg grating, wherein the second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) includes a second Bragg grating (BGs are Bragg gratings).
Regarding Claim 33, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 32,
wherein the first Bragg grating and the second Bragg grating (first and second SBG of DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) have a same Bragg geometry (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7, fig 9 also indicates same Bragg geometry of SBG1, SBG2).
Regarding Claim 34, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 32,
wherein the first Bragg grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) has a first Bragg condition, and wherein the second Bragg grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) has a second Bragg condition (“In Bragg gratings the multiplicity of input and output rays will satisfy the Bragg condition provided the angles between the incident rays and the k-vector diffracted rays and the K-vector satisfy the Bragg equation”, col 12, lines 56-60),
wherein the first Bragg condition is shifted with respect to the second Bragg condition by the offset angle (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7, This implies that there is an offset angle between the two SBGs, the offset angle is around 4° (fig 9)).
Regarding Claim 36, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 31,
wherein the optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) includes a volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I, “Each waveguide has a switchable input grating”, col 13, lines 39-50, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8, DIGI-I is a VHOE),
wherein the first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) is formed in a first film of the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I which is a VHOE), and wherein the second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) is formed in a second film of the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I which is a VHOE) (DIGI-I is made of DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2 , each in a different waveguide as in fig 6 and hence in first and second photopolymer films) and
wherein the first film and the second film are arranged in a stacked arrangement (DIGI-1 and DIGI-2 are stacked as in fig 6 as the waveguides 150,151 which comprise the gratings are stacked).
Regarding Claim 39, Brown teaches a system (transparent display, col 13, lines 38-39, systems applicable to a helmet mounted head worn display for use in Augmented Immersive Team training, col 1, lines 41-47), comprising:
an optical element (input grating DIGI-I with DIGI-I1, DIGI-I2, col 13, lines 39-50) coupled with an optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101) and characterized by a total range of acceptance angles (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7) for light incident on the optical substrate (substrate of waveguide 101, the optical element (input grating DIGI-I1, col 13, lines 39-50) comprising:
a first diffraction grating (first SBG of DIGI-I1, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a first diffraction efficiency and a first range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°); and
a second diffraction grating (second SBG of DIGI-I2, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) characterized by a second diffraction efficiency and a second range of acceptance angles (range of acceptance angles is 0 to 8.5°), wherein:
the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (first and second SBGs of DIGI-I, “The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) are arranged according to an overlapping arrangement (“the two stacked DIGI-I gratings may be provided in each Digi Lens waveguide to increase the angular bandwidth”, col 16, lines 64-66),
the first range and the second range are offset relative to each other by an offset angle (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7, This implies that there is an offset angle between the two SBGs, the offset angle is around 4° (fig 9)) and the total range is formed by at least the first range and the second range (the sum of the acceptance angle range is around 20 deg as in Brown’s annotated fig 9), and
at a first incidence angle of the light (for instance at 0°) the first diffraction efficiency has a first value different from a second value of the second diffraction efficiency (for instance at 0°, the first dotted curve for SBG1 has a zero diffraction efficiency DE while the second dotted curve for SBG2 has a finite high value of DE, fig 9).
Regarding Claim 40, Brown teaches the system of claim 39,
wherein the first range and the second range (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths”, col 16, lines 4-7) have substantially a same size (same angular bandwidth of 8.5° and range), and
wherein the offset angle (“The DIGI-I comprises 2 SBGs each operating over 8.5° angular bandwidths overlapping to provide at least 15°”, col 16, lines 4-7 This implies that there is an offset angle between the two SBGs, the offset angle is around 4° (fig 9)) is smaller than the same size.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22,29-30, 35, 37-38, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 9,933,684 B2, of record).
Regarding Claim 22, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the optical element includes a volume holographic optical element, and wherein the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating are formed in a same photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 10 of Brown are related as first and second diffraction gratings.
Embodiment of fig 10 of Brown teaches
wherein the optical element (HBEI1, col 17, lines 10-25) includes a volume holographic optical element (HBEI1, col 17, lines 10-25, “HBE-I SBGs”, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8), and wherein the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (HBE-I1A,B, col 17, lines 10-25) are formed in a same photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element (“There are two HBE waveguides 171, 172, each comprising 3 stacked gratings (HBE-I1A-C and HBE-I2A-C)”, col 17, lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first and second diffraction gratings of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to be in the same photopolymer film of embodiment of fig 10 of Brown for the purpose of limiting material costs and process steps (col 17, lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 29, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the first diffraction grating corresponds to a first color range, and wherein the second diffraction grating corresponds to a second color range.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 16 of Brown are related as first and second diffraction gratings.
Embodiment of fig 16 of Brown teaches
wherein the first diffraction grating (DIGI-IR, col 18, lines 49-60) corresponds to a first color range (Red color range), and wherein the second diffraction grating (DIGI-IB/G, col 18, lines 49-60) corresponds to a second color range (“in each Digi Lens waveguide doublet one of the waveguides operates on red light and the second one operates on a mixture of blue and green light”, col 18, lines 49-60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first and second diffraction gratings of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to correspond to color ranges of embodiment of fig 16 of Brown for the purpose of application in a full color display (col 18, lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 30, Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the first diffraction grating corresponds to a plurality of color ranges, and wherein the second diffraction grating corresponds to the plurality of color ranges.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 19 of Brown are related as first and second diffraction gratings.
Embodiment of fig 19 of Brown teaches
wherein the first diffraction grating (DIGI-I1, fig 19 A) corresponds to a plurality of color ranges (RGB color ranges), and wherein the second diffraction grating (DIGI-I2, fig 19B) corresponds to the plurality of color ranges (each Digi Lens waveguide comprises a single SBG layer that supports red, green and blue TIR”, col 19, lines 59-63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first and second diffraction gratings of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to correspond to plural color ranges of embodiment of fig 19 of Brown for the purpose of application in a full color display (col 18, lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 35, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 32.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the optical element includes a volume holographic optical element, and wherein the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating are formed in a same photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 10 of Brown are related as first and second diffraction gratings.
Embodiment of fig 10 of Brown teaches
wherein the optical element (HBEI1, col 17, lines 10-25) includes a volume holographic optical element (HBEI1, col 17, lines 10-25, “HBE-I SBGs”, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8), and wherein the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (HBE-I1A,B, col 17, lines 10-25) are formed in a same photopolymer film of the volume holographic optical element (“There are two HBE waveguides 171, 172, each comprising 3 stacked gratings (HBE-I1A-C and HBE-I2A-C)”, col 17, lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first and second diffraction gratings of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to be in the same photopolymer film of embodiment of fig 10 of Brown for the purpose of limiting material costs and process steps (col 17, lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 37, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 31.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the optical element includes a volume holographic optical element, wherein the volume holographic optical element includes a film that forms at least a portion of the first diffraction grating, and wherein the film is associated with a first color range only.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 16 of Brown are related as first second diffraction.
Embodiment of fig 16 of Brown teaches
wherein the optical element (DIGI-I, DIGI-O, col 18, lines 43-46) includes a volume holographic optical element, wherein the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I, col 18, lines 43-46, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8) includes a film that forms at least a portion of the first diffraction grating (DIGI-IR, col 18, lines 49-60), and wherein the film is associated with a first color range only (red color range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first diffraction grating of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to correspond to a single color range of embodiment of fig 16 of Brown for the purpose of application in a full color display (col 18, lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 38, Brown teaches the augmented reality device of claim 31.
However, embodiment of fig 6 of Brown does not teach
wherein the optical element includes a volume holographic optical element, wherein the volume holographic optical element includes a film that forms at least a portion of the first diffraction grating, and wherein the film is associated with at least a first color range and a second color range.
Embodiment of fig 6 of Brown and embodiment of fig 16 of Brown are related as first diffraction gratings.
Embodiment of fig 16 of Brown teaches
wherein the optical element (DIGI-I, DIGI-O, col 18, lines 43-46) includes a volume holographic optical element, wherein the volume holographic optical element (DIGI-I, col 18, lines 43-46, “An SBG is a diffractive device formed by recording a volume phase grating, or hologram, in a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) mixture”, col 3, lines 4-8) includes a film that forms at least a portion of the first diffraction grating (DIGI-IB/G, col 18, lines 49-60), and wherein the film is associated with at least a first color range and a second color range (blue and green ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first diffraction grating of embodiment of fig 6 of Brown to correspond to color ranges of embodiment of fig 16 of Brown for the purpose of application in a full color display (col 18, lines 42-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/7/2026