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 Amendment
Claims 8-14 are currently pending. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration. In response to the Office Action mailed 1/30/2026 Applicant amended claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19.
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.
Claims 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016009083 A to Tanaka et al.
Regarding Claim 8. Tanaka discloses a wearable display, comprising: a projector configured to emit light representing an image (Fig. 7 projector 45); and a lightguide configured to direct the light representing the image to an eye of a user (See at least lens Fig. 13C lens 1), wherein the lightguide comprises: a substrate having a first surface forming at least a first portion of a first surface of a light guide (Fig. 13C substrate 2); a plurality of reflective structures disposed on the substrate (See Fig. 13C reflecting layer 4); and an overcoat material disposed over the plurality of reflective structures so as to form at least a portion of a second surface of the lightguide (See Fig. 13C resin 5), the second surface of the lightguide being opposite the first surface of the lightguide (as shown in Fig. 13C).
Regarding Claim 13. Tanaka further discloses the lightguide further comprises a first mirror coating disposed on a first reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures (See at least Fig. 13C reflecting layer 4, para 46 “The light reflecting layer 4 may not be a single layer but may be a laminated structure of a plurality of reflecting layers”).
Regarding Claim 14. Tanaka further discloses the lightguide further comprises a second mirror coating disposed on a second reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures, wherein the first mirror coating is different from the second mirror coating (See at least Fig. 13C reflecting layer 4, para 97 “discontinuously arranging a plurality of light-reflecting layers 4”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016009083 A to Tanaka et al.
Regarding Claim 9. As stated above Tanaka discloses all the limitations of base claim 8.
Tanaka does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the substrate between a first end of a reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and the first surface of the lightguide is less than 1 micron.
The thickness of the substrate between a first end of a reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and the first surface of the lightguide is result-effective variable. In that, there is a general design incentive to reduce the thickness of display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a thickness of the substrate between a first end of a reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and the first surface of the lightguide is less than 1 micron, to reduce the thickness of the light guide based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 10. Tanaka does not specifically disclose that a thickness of the substrate between a second end of the reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and a second, opposing surface of the lightguide is less than 1 micron.
The thickness of the substrate between a second end of the reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and a second, opposing surface of the lightguide is result-effective variable. In that, there is a general design incentive to reduce the thickness of display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a thickness of the substrate between a second end of the reflective structure of the plurality of reflective structures and a second, opposing surface of the lightguide is less than 1 micron, to reduce the thickness of the light guide based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016009083 A to Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 10 in view of US 20180354212 A1 to Padiou et al.
Regarding Claim 11. As stated above Tanaka renders obvious all the limitations of base claim 10.
Tanaka does not specifically disclose that the lightguide further comprises a hydrophobic coating disposed on the second, opposing surface of the lightguide.
However, Padiou discloses coating an optical device with a hydrophobic coating, among a list of desirable functional coatings to improve the optics of the device (para 137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the lightguide further comprises a hydrophobic coating disposed on the second, opposing surface of the lightguide.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016009083 A to Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 8 in view of US 20180354212 A1 to Padiou et al.
Regarding Claim 12. As stated above Tanaka discloses all the limitations of base claim 8.
Tanaka does not specifically disclose that the lightguide further comprises a hard coating deposited on the first surface of the lightguide.
However, Padiou discloses coating an optical device with a hard coating, to improve durability and scratch resistance (para 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the lightguide further comprises a hard coating deposited on the first surface of the lightguide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious all limitations of Applicant’s invention.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 is not persuasive because the claim does not sufficiently define overcoat material to exclude the layer or material disclosed in the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9-10 is not persuasive because applicant's arguments do not address why it would not be obvious to optimize a result effective variable or the prior art.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights