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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 23, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 13, has canceled claim 20 and has newly added claim 21.
Claims 1-19 and 21 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 21 has been newly added to include the phrase “the reflective axes exhibit angles that vary across a lateral area of the output coupler” that is not enable by the specification. In light of the independent claim (claim 1) that claim 21 depends from, where both the first grating and the second grating of the output coupler have both first and second grating vectors points in the same direction. Since reflective axis is aligned with the grating vector, this means both first and second gratings must have same reflective axis. The specification therefore fails to enable reflective axes exhibit angles that vary across a lateral area of the output coupler.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 13 are 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.
Claims 6 and 13 have been amended to include the phrase “the light after being coupled out of the waveguide by the output coupler is characterized by a Zernike polynomial having a non-zero term of a third order or higher” that is confusing and indefinite. It is noted that Zernike polynomial is a mathematical term and it is not clear what property of the light has this character. Claims 6 and 13 originally recites “output coupler has a … Zernike coefficient” now they are amended to state that “light after being coupled out of the waveguide … characterized by a Zernike polynomial”. An output coupler and a light coupled out by output coupler are totally different, so it is really not clear the “Zernike coefficient or the polynomial” is for what property of what element.
The scopes are confusing and indefinite.
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) 1-3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Akutsu et al (US 2009/0303212 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Akutsu et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an image display that serves as the electronic device that is comprised of a light guide plate serves as the waveguide (13, Figure 1) configured to propagate light via total internal reflection, a medium, with the output coupler disposed within (15, Figure 1, or 25, Figure 5), is on the waveguide and an output coupler (15 or 25) on the waveguide and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide, the output coupler being configured to couple the light out of the waveguide, the output coupler being configured to reflect the light about spatially varying reflective axes oriented at non-zero angles relative to a surface normal of the medium, (please see Figures 1 and 12). The output coupler (25, Figure 5) includes a first grating (25R, Figure 5) disposed at a location in the medium and characterized by a first grating vector defined as perpendicular direction with respect to the orientation of the grating fringes), having a first length and pointing in a first direction and a second grating (25B) disposed at the location in the medium characterized by a second grating vector having a second length and pointing in the first direction.
In light of the clarification concerning the definition of “length” and the amended phrase “the first grating vector has a first length” and the amended phrase “the second grating has a second length”, Akutsu et al teaches that the spacing of the first grating (25R) is different from the second spacing of the second grating (25B), and since a grating vector has a magnitude or length that is proportional to the spacing of the grating, the first length of first grating vector and the second length of the second grating vector are therefore different from each other.
With regard to claim 2, Akutsu et al teaches that the first grating comprises a first volume hologram and the second grating comprises a second volume hologram, (please see the Abstract).
With regard to claim 3, Akutsu et al teaches that the incident light is collimated by a collimating optical system (12, Figure 1, paragraph [0060]) which means that the light incident on the output coupler (15 o 25) are also collimated. The light reflected from the output coupler is converged that implicitly has a curved wavefront.
With regard to claim 7, Akutsu et al teaches that the first grating (25R, Figure 5) and the second grating (25B) would diffract light of different wavelength, such as red and blue respectively. Akutsu et al teaches to further include grating (25G) that reflects and diffracts green light. This means the incident light includes red, blue and green wavelengths.
With regard to claim 8, Akutsu et al teaches that an image display element (11, Figure 1) is to provide the incident light that carries image information, (please see paragraph [0060]).
This reference has therefore anticipated the claims.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Akutsu et al (US 2009/0303212 A1).
Akutsu et al teaches an image display that serves as the electronic device that is comprised of a waveguide or light guide plate (13, Figures 1 and 5) configured to propagate light via internal reflection, a medium (15, Figure 1 or 25, Figure 5) with diffractive gratings (25R, 25G, 25B) in the medium, wherein at least one of the diffractive gratings (25R) is configured to reflect a first portion of the light having a first wavelength, such as red wavelength and a first range of incident angle about a first reflective axis, the first portion of the light being incident upon a surface of the medium at a first location and at least one of diffractive gratings (25B or 25G) is configured to reflect a second portion of the light having a second wavelength (such as green wavelength or blue wavelength) and a second range of incidence angles about a second reflective axis the second portion of the light being incident upon a surface of the medium at a second location and the first reflective axis differs from the second reflective axis by at least 0.1 degrees, (please see Figure 12).
With regard to claim 18, the first reflective axis and the second reflective axis are each non-parallel to a normal axis of the medium, (please see Figure 1).
This reference has therefore anticipated the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu et al in view of the US patent issued to Popovich et al (PN. 10,642,058) .
The image display taught by Akutsu et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Akutsu et al does not teach explicitly that the waveguide or light guide plate comprises a substrate layered on the medium and an additional substrate layered on the medium with the medium interposed between the substrate and the additional substrate.
Popovich et al teaches a display that is comprised of a waveguide with a pair of substrates (30 and 31, Figure 6) wherein a grating medium is interposed between the pair of the substrates that the grating medium comprises an output coupler (11C, please see Figure 6).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Popovich et al to modify the image display of Akutsu et al to make the waveguide comprises a pair of substrates for the benefit of making the medium to be interposed between a pair of substrates.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu et al.
Claim 6 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The amendment to claim 6 has been rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claim therefore are unclear.
The image display taught by Akutsu et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite that make the examination of claim difficult. For the purposed of examination, the claim is being interpreted as output coupler comprises grating that has a diffraction order of third order. As shown in Figure 1, the gratings of the output coupler taught by Akutsu et al diffracts the incident light to output the light toward the observer’s eye. The diffraction of the light is a non-zero diffraction order, which may include third diffraction order in order for the light to be directed to the viewer’s eye.
Claim(s) 9 and newly added claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu et al in view of the patent issued to Mukawa (PN. 7,453,612).
The image display taught by Akutsu et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9 and newly added claim 21, Akutsu et al teaches that the spatially varying reflective axes have orientations that vary smoothly. However this reference does not teach explicitly that the variation is a function of position across the medium or the reflective axes exhibit angles that vary across a lateral area of the output coupler Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a display with a waveguide including an output coupler (34, Figure 10) wherein the output coupler comprises a plurality of gratings (34a to 34e) wherein each of the gratings reflects the incident light in a different direction, and the spatially reflection or the reflective axes have orientations that vary smoothly as a function of position across the medium. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the output coupler with the first and second gratings be arranged such that the spatial variation of the reflective axes be smooth as a function of the position across the medium as a different arrangement.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Akutsu et al (US 2009/0303212 A1) in view of the patent issued to Mukawa (PN. 7,453,612).
Akutsu et al teaches an image display that serves as the electronic device that is comprised of a medium with the coupler (15, Figure 1 or 25, Figure 5) and an optical coupler (15 or 25) in the medium, wherein the optical coupler is configured to reflect light about reflective axes that varies. The reflective axes from non-zero angles relative to a surface normal of the medium and the optical coupler includes a first grating (25R, Figure 5) at a location in the medium the first grating having a first frequency or spacing and being oriented a first direction and a second grating (25G or 25B) at the location in the medium the second grating having a second frequency different from the first frequency and being oriented the direction.
This reference has met all the limitation that the reflective axes vary across the medium. Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a display that includes an output coupler in a medium that is comprised of a plurality of gratings that each has a spatially different reflective axis and the gratings are arranged that the reflective axes of the gratings vary across the medium, (please see Figure 10). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Mukawa to modify the output coupler with the gratings to be arranged such that the reflective axes vary across the medium for the benefit of providing a different design and arrangement for the output coupler.
With regard to claim 11, Akutsu et al teaches that the first grating comprises a first volume hologram and the second grating comprises a second volume hologram, (please see the Abstract).
With regard to claim 12, Akutsu et al teaches that the incident light is collimated by a collimating optical system (12, Figure 1, paragraph [0060]) which means that the light incident on the output coupler (15 o 25) are also collimated. The light reflected from the output coupler is converged that implicitly has a curved wavefront.
With regard to amended claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite that make the examination of claim difficult. For the purposed of examination, the claim is being interpreted as output coupler comprises grating that has a diffraction order of third order. As shown in Figure 1, the gratings of the output coupler taught by Akutsu et al diffracts the incident light to output the light toward the observer’s eye. The diffraction of the light is a non-zero diffraction order, which may include third diffraction order in order for the light to be directed to the viewer’s eye.
With regard to claim 14, Akutsu et al teaches that the image display comprises a waveguide (22, Figure 1) configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection and the medium being layered on the waveguide.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu et al and Mukawa as applied to claims 10 and 14 and further in view of the US patent issued to Popovich et al (PN. 10,642,058) .
The image display taught by Akutsu et al in combination with the teachings of Mukawa as described in claims 10 and 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Akutsu et al does not teach explicitly that the waveguide or light guide plate comprises a substrate layered on the medium and an additional substrate layered on the medium with the medium interposed between the substrate and the additional substrate.
Popovich et al teaches a display that is comprised of a waveguide with a pair of substrates (30 and 31, Figure 6) wherein a grating medium is interposed between the pair of the substrates that the grating medium comprises an output coupler (11C, please see Figure 6).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Popovich et al to modify the image display of Akutsu et al to make the waveguide comprises a pair of substrates for the benefit of making the medium to be interposed between a pair of substrates.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu et al.
The image display taught by Akutsu et al as described in claim 17 has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 19, this reference does not teach explicitly that the first range of incidence angles and the second range of incident angles each s[an at least 15 degrees. However, it is within general level of skilled in the art to design the grating having specific orientation of the grating lines or grooves in order for the grating to have a desired of incident angle range. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to design the gratings to have desired ranges of incident angles for the benefit of allowing the output coupler to have desired properties.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,774,657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim grating structure with a first grating and a second grating in a grating medium wherein the first grating has a first grating vector having a first length and pointing a first direction and the second grating has a second grating vector having a second length and pointing in the first direction wherein the second length is different than the first length. And they both claim a grating structure with a first grating and a second grating in a grating medium wherein the first grating has a first frequency and oriented in a first direction and the second grating has a second frequency and oriented in the same first direction wherein the second frequency is different than the first frequency. And they both claim grating structure is structured to reflect incident light having a first wavelength and a first range of incidence angle and grating structure is structured to reflect incident light having a second wavelength and second range of incidence angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Akutsu reference which states that it does not disclose “spatially varying reflective axes” the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth below. First, Akutsu reference teaches identical output coupler with a first grating having a first grating vector and the first grating vector has a first vector length and a second grating having a second grating vector and the second grating vector has a second vector length, wherein the first grating vector and the second grating vector point in the first direction or the same direction. This means the “spatially varying reflective axes” should be an inherent property of the output coupler of Akutsu since it has identical structure as the instant application. Second, the claims of the instant application does not teach any other structure that will make the output coupler has “spatially varying reflective axes” which therefore does differentiate itself with the cited Akutsu reference. Third, it is known in the art and it is also disclosed in paragraph [0073] of the specification of instant application, that the reflective axis of the grating is aligned with the grating vector. So, if the grating vectors of the first and second gratings are pointing in the same direction, then the reflective axes will not be different.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Mukawa reference are not correct. Mukawa discloses an output coupler having a plurality of gratings that each has a vector grating (defined as the normal line to the grating lines) that points in different direction and since reflective axis each aligned with the grating vector, this means the reflective axes are varying across the lateral direction. Applicant’s interpretation of Figure 10 if Mukawa is incorrect.
The applicant is respectfully noted that a reflective axis for a grating is perpendicular to the groove ruling or the grating lines, which is the same direction as the grating vector of the grating. The specification and the claims in the instant application seems to be confused about the definition that known in the art.
Applicant fails to address the double patent rejection to the pending claims.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872