DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to AmendmentApplicant’s arguments filed on December 15th, 2025 have been considered and entered.
The rejection to claim 9 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection to claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 10 under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment, but are rejected under 35 USC 103 in a combination necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pp. 3-6) are directed to the original rejection under 35 USC 102 over D1 (Danziger, US 20220003914), and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Additionally, applicant arguments directed towards the rejection of claim 9 over 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that D1’s reflectors 22L and 22R are spatially separated (22L on the left side and 22R on the right side of surface 29 in Figure 6), not alternating. This argument is persuasive as to D1 alone, and the 102 rejection over D1 is withdrawn.
However, the argument does not address the new combination of references presented below.
Applicant argues that D1 fails to teach that each facet set receives light having a different optical characteristic. This is also persuasive as to D1 alone. However, US 11,714,223 B2, introduced in the new grounds of rejection below (and referred to as D3), expressly teaches interleaved, alternating facet sets with complementary optical coatings that are each selectively reflective to different subsets of optical components (polarization, wavelength).
The deficiencies of D1 are cured by Dobschal and D3 as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 below.
Applicant argues that claims 2, 3 and 7 are allowable over reliance of D2, as D2 teaches light of the same direction impinging on the two facets. This argument is moot under the new grounds of rejection, where D2 is not used.
Applicant argues that claim 8 is allowable as it relies on base claim 1 taught by D1. This argument is moot as claim 1 is rejected under new grounds necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims should be deemed allowable for reciting “additional novel features” beyond claim 1. This argument is not persuasive, and the grounds of rejection for the additional features are set forth in the rejections below.
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) 1-7, 10-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal (WO 2015/044302 A1) in view of Danziger et al. (US 20220003914 A1, hereafter known as D1) and further in view of Danziger et al. (US 20230124852 A1, hereafter known as D3).
Regarding claim 1;
Dobschal discloses a waveguide (Figures 1-3, Spectacle lens 3), comprising:
An outcoupler (Figures 2 and 14, outcoupling portion 11 in the central region 16)
with a dual reflective facet configuration (Figure 14, the outcoupling section 11 comprises partially reflect facets 35 which are connected by flanks 36, forming an alternating set of dual-angle planar surfaces within the waveguide which are adjacent to one another; Dobschal’s facets 35 are explicitly reflective, and flanks 36 “are preferably transparent or partially reflecting.”) comprising:
a first set of reflective facets (Figure 14, facets 35) to receive light from a first direction and reflect light incident thereon to an outcoupling direction (facets 35 receive L11 propagating from the left with total internal reflection, to output the light as L1{11, 12, 13 or 14})
Dobschal does not explicitly teach an “optical characteristic” attributed to the reflective facets.
and a second set of reflective facets (Figure 14, flanks 36)
Dobschal does not teach that the second set of faces receive light from a second direction.
Wherein reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets alternate with reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets in the dual reflective facet configuration (facets 35 and flanks 36 are reflective and visually appear to be alternating, as seen in Figure 14).
D1 teaches a dual reflector configuration (Figure 6, 22L and 22R make two sets of reflectors receiving light from two directions) to receive light from a second direction and reflect light incident thereon to the outcoupling direction (The now reflective faces 36 would reflect light having the second optical characteristics towards the viewer, in the manner that D1’s reflectors 22R direct light to the observer, and analogous to how L11 uses facets 35 to deliver light to L1{11, 12, 13 or 14}).
This makes the bidirectionality of input light known to the skilled artisan.
D1 does not explicitly teach a specific ‘optical characteristics’, but the examiner notes that optical characteristics can mean a wide variety of things concerning the interaction between a component and the incident light: polarization, reflectivity, transparency, material, etc.
D3 teaches a dual reflective facet configuration in headset optics (internal surfaces 16 and 18 are coated and ‘at least partially reflective’).
Importantly, D3 teaches that there are two optical characteristics for the reflective facets (set 18 has a “second reflection characteristic that is complementary to the first reflection characteristic”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Dobschal under the teachings of D1 and D3.
Dobschal + D1: Dobschal’s flanks 36 represent an inefficiency – light transmitted through facets 35 do not necessary encounter flanks 36 and also experience reflection to the visual field. D1 teaches that a second set of differently angled reflective facets can be used in the same waveguide outcoupler and can capture light from a second direction to reflect it towards the viewpoint, making it obvious to modify the flanks such that they perform the same function.
Dobschal + D1 + D3: Once the faces of the alternating facet configuration are arranged and reflective, under the teachings of D3, who teach that two interleaved sets of facets should have complementary optical coatings. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify both sets to match the optical properties of the input light in the device and the interaction with the light coming from both sides, and having polarization/wavelength related conditions would be the obvious choice. This may be accomplished using different coatings and surface properties of the coating on the reflector, and optimized routinely for minimal loss and crosstalk for the desired frequencies, wavelengths, polarizations and/or intensities of light.
The coating scheme of D3 and the bidirectional dual reflective facet configuration of D1 would be obvious to impose onto the invention of Dobschal, and may be accomplished using methods known in the art. Predictably, it would result in a device which benefits from two light sources supplying optical signal for the viewer while only needing one outcoupling region, reducing the volumetric footprint of the facets and maintaining low loss with proper treatment of optically distinct light.
Regarding claim 2;
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein a first reflective facet of the first set of reflective facets is adjoined to a first reflective facet of the second set of reflective facets at a first angle, and wherein the first reflective facet of the second set of reflective facets is adjoined to a second reflective facet of the first set of reflective facets at a second angle.
Figure 14 of Dobschal depicts facets 35 and flanks 36 (which are themselves reflective facets in the combined invention) are adjoined together at a first and second angle.
Regarding claim 3;
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1,
wherein reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets are parallel to one another (Figure 14, the facets 35 are parallel), wherein reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets are parallel to one another and not parallel to reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets (Figure 14, the flanks 36 are parallel with each other but not the first set of reflective facets 35).
Regarding claim 4;
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Dobschal does not explicitly disclose the reflective facet relations with the optical characteristics.
D3 discloses dual reflective facets (16, 18) wherein the reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets transmit light having the second optical characteristic (both sets are coated, but with different yet complementary materials, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of D3 to ensure that the first set of facets transmits light having a ‘second’ optical characteristic (polarization, wavelength, etc.). This may be accomplished by configuring the coating to permit/reflect light with specific optical characteristics, using methods and materials known in the art. This would predictably result in device which allows for a high degree of configurability in the specific kind of light that is transmitted, where the bi-directional nature of the dual reflective facets permits two sets of optical characteristics to be utilized by the apparatus, improving its bandwidth and configurability.
Regarding claim 5;
Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 4.
Dobschal does not disclose the optical characteristics as claimed.
D3 discloses a dual reflective facet configuration, wherein the second set reflective p-polarization with high reflectance, and thus transmits s-polarization (a first optical characteristic).
This means reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets transmit light having the first optical characteristic (second set 18 of D3 is applied to the flanks 36 of Dobschal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 4 above under the teachings of D3 to have light of the first optical characteristic be transmitted by the second set of facets. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably result in a device which is wavelength selective and outcouples light efficiently.
Regarding claim 6;
Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein
the first optical characteristic is a first wavelength range or angle of incidence, and the second optical characteristic is a second wavelength range or second angle of incidence (light incident on facets 35, 36 in the invention of claim 1 is clearly impingent on the surfaces of the facets at different angles, making for two optical characteristics that differ)
Additionally, D3 teaches a first and second set of reflective facets which reflect two different wavelengths at high efficiency (Figures 7-10), the first set reflecting green light and the second set reflecting red/blue (“Here, the dielectric coating of the internal surfaces 16a, 16b, 16c reflects a first subset of components of the image illumination, in the form of green light (i.e., light having wavelengths near 532 nm), with reasonably high efficiency (approximately 10% reflectance), but reflects a second subset of components of the image illumination, in the form of red light and blue light (i.e., light having wavelengths near 638 nm and 456 nm, respectively), with lower efficiency than the green light reflection (approximately 4% reflectance)”, paragraph 132).
A skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify the facets under the teachings of D3 to include wavelength selective reflective facets known to the art, to predictably permit the controlled emission of light at specific wavelengths, such as those best suited to the human visual range.
Regarding claim 7;
Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Dobschal does not explicitly disclose polarization states.
D3 discloses that the first set of reflective facets wherein the first optical characteristic is a first polarization state, and wherein the second optical characteristic is a second polarization state (Figure 11, paragraph 9: “Optionally, the first subset of components includes light having a first polarization direction, and the second subset of components includes light having a second polarization direction,” in reference to the reflective facets.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of D3 to configure the two sets of reflective facets to have two optical characteristics, wherein the two optical characteristics are different polarization states. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art (coatings that permit/reflect polarized light, careful configuration of the light source), and would predictably result in a device which emits controlled, polarized light for the preservation of continuity of aperture multiplication and better image uniformity without less design effort.
Regarding claim 10;
Dobschal discloses a method to outcouple light of a waveguide (Figures 1-3, Spectacle lens 3; Figures 2 and 14, outcoupling portion 11 in the central region 16), comprising:
Receiving, at a first set of reflective facets in a dual reflective facet configuration (Figure 14, the outcoupling section 11 comprises partially reflect facets 35 which are connected by flanks 36, forming an alternating set of dual-angle planar surfaces within the waveguide which are adjacent to one another; Dobschal’s facets 35 are explicitly reflective, and flanks 36 “are preferably transparent or partially reflecting.”), light from a first direction toward an outcoupling direction (facets 35 receive L11 propagating from the left with total internal reflection, to output the light as L1{11, 12, 13 or 14})
Dobschal does not explicitly teach an “optical characteristic” attributed to the reflective facets.
and a second set of reflective facets (Figure 14, flanks 36)
Dobschal does not teach that the second set of faces receive light from a second direction.
Wherein reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets alternate with reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets in the dual reflective facet configuration (facets 35 and flanks 36 are reflective and visually appear to be alternating, as seen in Figure 14).
D1 teaches a dual reflector configuration (Figure 6, 22L and 22R make two sets of reflectors receiving light from two directions) to receive light from a second direction and reflect light incident thereon to the outcoupling direction (The now reflective faces 36 would reflect light having the second optical characteristics towards the viewer, in the manner that D1’s reflectors 22R direct light to the observer, and analogous to how L11 uses facets 35 to deliver light to L1{11, 12, 13 or 14}).
This makes the bidirectionality of input light known to the skilled artisan.
D1 does not explicitly teach a specific ‘optical characteristics’, but the examiner notes that optical characteristics can mean a wide variety of things concerning the interaction between a component and the incident light: polarization, reflectivity, transparency, material, etc.
D3 teaches a dual reflective facet configuration in headset optics (internal surfaces 16 and 18 are coated and ‘at least partially reflective’).
Importantly, D3 teaches that there are two optical characteristics for the reflective facets (set 18 has a “second reflection characteristic that is complementary to the first reflection characteristic”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Dobschal under the teachings of D1 and D3.
Dobschal + D1: Dobschal’s flanks 36 represent an inefficiency – light transmitted through facets 35 do not necessarily encounter flanks 36 and also experience reflection to the visual field. D1 teaches that a second set of differently angled reflective facets can be used in the same waveguide outcoupler and can capture light from a second direction to reflect it towards the viewpoint, making it obvious to modify the flanks such that they perform the same function.
Dobschal + D1 + D3: Once the faces of the alternating facet configuration are arranged and reflective, under the teachings of D3, who teach that two interleaved sets of facets should have complementary optical coatings. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify both sets to match the optical properties of the input light in the device and the interaction with the light coming from both sides, and having polarization/wavelength related conditions would be the obvious choice; thus, light of a first and second optical characteristic is obvious to compliment the difference in coatings intended for light of different characteristics. This may be accomplished using different coatings and surface properties of the coating on the reflector, and optimized routinely for minimal loss and crosstalk for the desired frequencies, wavelengths, polarizations and/or intensities of light.
The coating scheme of D3 and the bidirectional dual reflective facet configuration of D1 would be obvious to impose onto the invention of Dobschal, and may be accomplished using methods known in the art. Predictably, the modified Dobschal device would inherently perform the recited method steps and would result in a method of outcoupling which benefits from atleast two light characteristics supplying optical signal for the viewer while only needing one outcoupling region, reducing the volumetric footprint of the facets and maintaining low loss with proper treatment of optically distinct light.
Regarding claim 11:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a first reflective facet of the first set of reflective facets is adjoined to a first reflective facet of the second set of reflective facets at a first angle, and wherein the first reflective facet of the second set of reflective facets is adjoined to a second reflective facet of the first set of reflective facets at a second angle.
Figure 14 of Dobschal depicts facets 35 and flanks 36 (which are themselves reflective facets in the combined invention) are adjoined together at a first and second angle.
Regarding claim 12:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10,
wherein reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets are parallel to one another (Figure 14, the facets 35 are parallel), wherein reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets are parallel to one another and not parallel to reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets (Figure 14, the flanks 36 are parallel with each other but not the first set of reflective facets 35).
Regarding claim 13;
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10.
Dobschal does not explicitly disclose the reflective facet relations with the optical characteristics.
D3 discloses dual reflective facets (16, 18) wherein the reflective facets of the first set of reflective facets transmit light having the second optical characteristic (both sets are coated, but with different yet complementary materials, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the method of claim 10 above under the teachings of D3 to ensure that the first set of facets transmits light having a ‘second’ optical characteristic (polarization, wavelength, etc.) at the first set of reflective facets. This may be accomplished by configuring the coating to permit/reflect light with specific optical characteristics, using methods and materials known in the art. This would predictably result in device which allows for a high degree of configurability in the specific kind of light that is transmitted, where the bi-directional nature of the dual reflective facets permits two sets of optical characteristics to be utilized by the apparatus, improving its bandwidth and configurability.
Regarding claim 14:
-Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the method of claim 13.
Dobschal does not disclose the optical characteristics as claimed.
D3 discloses a dual reflective facet configuration, wherein the second set reflective p-polarization with high reflectance, and thus transmits s-polarization (a first optical characteristic).
This means reflective facets of the second set of reflective facets transmit light having the first optical characteristic (second set 18 of D3 is applied to the flanks 36 of Dobschal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 13 above under the teachings of D3 to have light of the first optical characteristic be transmitted by the second set of facets. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably result in a device which is wavelength selective and outcouples light efficiently.
Regarding claim 15:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
the first optical characteristic is a first wavelength range or angle of incidence, and the second optical characteristic is a second wavelength range or second angle of incidence (light incident on facets 35, 36 in the invention of claim 1 is clearly impingent on the surfaces of the facets at different angles, making for two optical characteristics that differ)
Additionally, D3 teaches a first and second set of reflective facets which reflect two different wavelengths at high efficiency (Figures 7-10), the first set reflecting green light and the second set reflecting red/blue (“Here, the dielectric coating of the internal surfaces 16a, 16b, 16c reflects a first subset of components of the image illumination, in the form of green light (i.e., light having wavelengths near 532 nm), with reasonably high efficiency (approximately 10% reflectance), but reflects a second subset of components of the image illumination, in the form of red light and blue light (i.e., light having wavelengths near 638 nm and 456 nm, respectively), with lower efficiency than the green light reflection (approximately 4% reflectance)”, paragraph 132).
A skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify the facets 36 in the invention of claim 10 under the teachings of D3 to include wavelength selective reflective facets known to the art, to predictably permit the controlled emission of light at specific wavelengths, such as those best suited to the human visual range.
Regarding claim 16:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
Dobschal does not explicitly disclose polarization states.
D3 discloses that the first set of reflective facets wherein the first optical characteristic is a first polarization state, and wherein the second optical characteristic is a second polarization state (Figure 11, paragraph 9: “Optionally, the first subset of components includes light having a first polarization direction, and the second subset of components includes light having a second polarization direction,” in reference to the reflective facets.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 10 above under the teachings of D3 to configure the two sets of reflective facets to have two optical characteristics, wherein the two optical characteristics are different polarization states. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art (coatings that permit/reflect polarized light, careful configuration of the light source), and would predictably result in a device which emits controlled, polarized light for the preservation of continuity of aperture multiplication and better image uniformity without less design effort.
Regarding claim 19:
Dobschal discloses an eyewear display comprising at least one light engine configured to emit light (Figure 2, image generating module 8);
and a waveguide comprising (spectacle lens 3):
at least one incoupler configured to receive light emitted from the at least one light engine (coupling in section 10 in edge area 15 of spectacle lens 3 receives light bundles L1);
and an outcoupler (outcoupling section 11) with a dual reflective facet configuration (Figure 14, facets 35 and flanks 36 [which may be reflective, making them reflective facets]) comprising:
a first set of reflective facets (35) to receive light from a first direction reflect light incident thereon having the first optical characteristic to an outcoupling direction (towards outcoupling section 11);
Dobschal does not explicitly teach an “optical characteristic” attributed to the reflective facets.
and a second set of reflective facets (Figure 14, flanks 36)
Dobschal does not teach that the second set of faces receive light from a second direction.
D1 teaches a dual reflector configuration (Figure 6, 22L and 22R make two sets of reflectors receiving light from two directions) to receive light from a second direction and reflect light incident thereon to the outcoupling direction (The now reflective faces 36 would reflect light having the second optical characteristics towards the viewer, in the manner that D1’s reflectors 22R direct light to the observer, and analogous to how L11 uses facets 35 to deliver light to L1{11, 12, 13 or 14}).
This makes the bidirectionality of input light known to the skilled artisan.
D1 does not explicitly teach a specific ‘optical characteristics’, but the examiner notes that optical characteristics can mean a wide variety of things concerning the interaction between a component and the incident light: polarization, reflectivity, transparency, material, etc.
D3 teaches a dual reflective facet configuration in headset optics (internal surfaces 16 and 18 are coated and ‘at least partially reflective’).
Importantly, D3 teaches that there are two optical characteristics for the reflective facets (set 18 has a “second reflection characteristic that is complementary to the first reflection characteristic”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Dobschal under the teachings of D1 and D3.
Dobschal + D1: Dobschal’s flanks 36 represent an inefficiency – light transmitted through facets 35 do not necessarily encounter flanks 36 and also experience reflection to the visual field. D1 teaches that a second set of differently angled reflective facets can be used in the same waveguide outcoupler and can capture light from a second direction to reflect it towards the viewpoint, making it obvious to modify the flanks such that they perform the same function.
Dobschal + D1 + D3: Once the faces of the alternating facet configuration are arranged and reflective, under the teachings of D3, who teach that two interleaved sets of facets should have complementary optical coatings. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify both sets to match the optical properties of the input light in the device and the interaction with the light coming from both sides, and having polarization/wavelength related conditions would be the obvious choice; thus, light of a first and second optical characteristic is obvious to compliment the difference in coatings intended for light of different characteristics. This may be accomplished using different coatings and surface properties of the coating on the reflector, and optimized routinely for minimal loss and crosstalk for the desired frequencies, wavelengths, polarizations and/or intensities of light.
The coating scheme of D3 and the bidirectional dual reflective facet configuration of D1 would be obvious to impose onto the invention of Dobschal, and may be accomplished using methods known in the art. Predictably, the modified Dobschal device would inherently perform the recited method steps and would result in a method of outcoupling which benefits from atleast two light characteristics supplying optical signal for the viewer while only needing one outcoupling region, reducing the volumetric footprint of the facets and maintaining low loss with proper treatment of optically distinct light.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal (WO 2015/044302 A1) in view of Danziger et al. (US 20220003914 A1, hereafter known as D1) and further in view of Danziger et al. (US 20230124852 A1, hereafter known as D3) and Chi et al. (US 10725291 B2, hereafter known as C1).
Regarding claim 8;
Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Dobschal does not disclose two input projectors.
C1 discloses a waveguide with two input projectors (Figure 11B, projectors 1104 and 1105) which send light downstream to the waveguide for further processing. The instant application specifies that the light engine includes one or more light sources configured to generate and output light, which the input projectors of C1 accomplish (Column 12, lines 4-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to have two light engines under the teaching of C1, such that the light from a first and second direction come from a first and second light engine, respectively. This could be accomplished using devices and methods known to the art, and would predictably result in a waveguide which carries light with a wider field-of-view (FOV) than a single light engine would permit, and which enables designated light sources to interact with the facets, providing greater dexterity in the device with minimal design effort.
Regarding claim 17:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
Dobschal does not disclose two input projectors.
C1 discloses a waveguide with two input projectors (Figure 11B, projectors 1104 and 1105) which send light downstream to the waveguide for further processing. The instant application specifies that the light engine includes one or more light sources configured to generate and output light, which the input projectors of C1 accomplish (Column 12, lines 4-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 10 to have two light engines under the teaching of C1, such that the light from a first and second direction come from a first and second light engine, respectively. This could be accomplished using devices and methods known to the art, and would predictably result in a waveguide which carries light with a wider field-of-view (FOV) than a single light engine would permit, and which enables designated light sources to interact with the facets, providing greater dexterity in the device with minimal design effort.
Claim(s) 9, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal (WO 2015/044302 A1) in view of Danziger et al. (US 20220003914 A1, hereafter known as D1) and further in view of Danziger et al. (US 20230124852 A1, hereafter known as D3) and Cheng et al. (WO 2018175652 A1).
Regarding claim 9;
Dobschal in view of D1, in further view of D3 discloses the waveguide of claim 1, with a duel reflective facet configuration (Figure 14, facets 35 and 36).
Dobschal does not teach a reflective and polarization switching surface.
However, the back surface of the waveguide will naturally reflect light, making it a reflective surface.
Cheng teaches a display device incorporating a light recycling system (Figure 35), wherein light having a first polarization (5325) and a second polarization state (5322) impinge/pass through wave retarders/coatings 5330. These change the polarization of light and determine what does and does not pass through, and light that is reflective (i.e. 5335, s polarized light) can be said to be in a second direction, before it is outcoupled as light 5320.
Cheng discloses the general structure required to meet a reflective and polarization switching surface that reflects light back which can be said to be in a second direction.
Cheng also therefore discloses two optical characteristics being two polarization states.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Cheng to devise a waveguide, further comprising:
a reflective and polarization switching surface positioned adjacent to the dual reflective facet configuration, wherein the reflective and polarization switching surface is configured to receive light from the first direction having the first optical characteristic after passing through the dual reflective facet configuration and reflect it back toward the dual reflective facet configuration as the light from the second direction having the second optical characteristic, wherein the first optical characteristic is a first polarization state and the second optical characteristic is a second polarization state.
This may be accomplished using methods (placement of parts, deposition and etching/machining) and materials (coatings, substrates) known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where an input light beam is efficiently utilized through polarization control and precise reflection to outcouple light with low loss and minimal inclusion of additional parts.
Regarding claim 18:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising a dual reflective facet configuration (Figure 14, facets 35 and 36):
Dobschal does not teach a reflective and polarization switching surface.
However, the back surface of the waveguide will naturally reflect light, making it a reflective surface.
Cheng teaches a display device incorporating a light recycling system (Figure 35), wherein light having a first polarization (5325) and a second polarization state (5322) impinge/pass through wave retarders/coatings 5330. These change the polarization of light and determine what does and does not pass through, and light that is reflective (i.e. 5335, s polarized light) can be said to be in a second direction, before it is outcoupled as light 5320.
Cheng discloses the general structure required to meet a reflective and polarization switching surface that reflects light back which can be said to be in a second direction.
Cheng also therefore discloses two optical characteristics being two polarization states.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 10 above under the teachings of Cheng to devise a method, further comprising:
receiving, at a reflective and polarization switching surface positioned adjacent to the dual reflective facet configuration, light from the first direction having the first optical characteristic after passing through the dual reflective facet configuration and reflecting it back toward the dual reflective facet configuration as the light from the second direction having the second optical characteristic, wherein the first optical characteristic is a first polarization state and the second optical characteristic is a second polarization state.
This may be accomplished using methods (placement of parts, deposition and etching/machining) and materials (coatings, substrates) known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where an input light beam is efficiently utilized through polarization control and precise reflection to outcouple light with low loss and minimal inclusion of additional parts.
Regarding claim 20:
Dobschal in view of D1 and further in view of D3 discloses the method of claim 19.
Dobschal does not teach a reflective and polarization switching surface.
However, the back surface of the waveguide will naturally reflect light, making it a reflective surface.
Cheng teaches a display device incorporating a light recycling system (Figure 35), wherein light having a first polarization (5325) and a second polarization state (5322) impinge/pass through wave retarders/coatings 5330. These change the polarization of light and determine what does and does not pass through, and light that is reflective (i.e. 5335, s polarized light) can be said to be in a second direction, before it is outcoupled as light 5320.
Cheng discloses the general structure required to meet a reflective and polarization switching surface that reflects light back which can be said to be in a second direction; therefore, a reflective and polarization switching surface positioned adjacent to the outcoupling configuration (the location of the dual reflective facets in the combined invention, as they are key components for outcoupling)
Cheng also therefore discloses two optical characteristics being two polarization states.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 19 above under the teachings of Cheng to further configure the device to take the light from the first direction, and:
reflect it back toward the dual reflective facet configuration as the light from the second direction having the second optical characteristic, wherein the first optical characteristic is a first polarization state and the second optical characteristic is a second polarization state.
This may be accomplished using methods (placement of parts, deposition and etching/machining) and materials (coatings, substrates) known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where an input light beam is efficiently utilized through polarization control and precise reflection to outcouple light with low loss and minimal inclusion of additional parts.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights