DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An RCE was filed with claim amendments pertaining to a “physical parameter that at least partially dictates an angle at which the grating structure directs light”. This amendment does not solve 35USC112 issues because the physical parameters are still not defined. The claim defines a function based generically upon a “physical parameter” of one or more grating structures without tying it to a specific, measurable metric such as a precise pitch, depth or duty cycle. Therefore, the claim recites a functional limitation that lacks structural definition.
Further, the one clarified angle parameter only “partially” dictates an angle with no ranges or values for how much it “partially” changes a parameter. A person skilled in the art would not be able to determine where “partial” dictation ends and where alternative optical influences begin.
Thirdly, the claim recites that a transition area is disposed adjacent grating structures but then at the same time includes grating structures. It is unclear how the gratings can be included within and adjacent at the same time.
Finally, the claim mentions modulation without any structure or type of modulation (active, passive, a mix thereof). For all these scenarios, the Specification must support all possible combinations that are within the breadth of the claims and currently that is a very wide range of outcomes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
As noted in the above Response to Arguments, the term “physical parameter” in independent claims 1, 9 and 17 is a term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “physical parameter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Subsequent claims such as claims 2-3 recites certain parameter values being greater than another. It is unclear what value to what parameter is to be considered. Further, claims 5-6 attempt to define a parameter as being an angle or depth (or duty cycle in claim 13), but it is then unclear with regard to the claims what portion of an angle, depth or duty cycle (and their associated ranges) is to be considered. Dependent claims are rejected on the basis of their dependency.
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, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,983,263 to Kleinman et al.
In an effort to advance prosecution, Examiner will interpret independent claims 1, 9 and 17 in their broadest reasonable interpretation while attempting to assume Applicant intended to capture a variable grating duty cycle, pitch or height are the parameters being adjusted. The claims should be amended in a response that clearly articulates their intention for the functional recitation.
Kleinman discloses in the abstract and figures 22-39, a waveguide comprising:
A set of grating structures disposed on a surface of the waveguide and configured to direct light based on a physical parameter of one or more grating structures of the set of grating structures, the physical parameter at least partially dictating an angle at which the one or more grating structures direct the light (figure 30B-30C); and
A first transition area disposed near grating structures to provide modulation (figure 40A and description in prior art specification for figure 40A).
Claim 9 relates to the above but adds a wearable system with an optical engine (figures 18 and 20).
Claim 17 is a method claim that relates to the providing of the above while disclosing various grating patterns which are shown in the prior art figures.
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) 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinman et al.
Kleinman discloses the invention as claimed except for identical language pertaining to the various parameters and values. As noted above, it is unclear what these values pertain to.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kleinman varies grating features, discloses light redirection, and optimization of output. Setting various parameters to be equal, greater or different in any aspect would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to optimize a display output.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights