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
The amendment filed April 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crosby (US 2024/0019698).
Regarding claim 1, Crosby discloses a method ([0804], “Phase Compensation and Modulation Methods for Interleaved Rectangular Gratings”) comprising:
guiding display light through a waveguide (Figs. 21-22, element 2103) comprising non- parallel surfaces ([0847], “variation of thickness must be associated with a variation in the parallelism between the surfaces of a DWC”) that laterally separate colors of the display light ([0847], “causing a loss of image sharpness, colour separation or distortion”); and
adding a phase perturbation ([0807], “to include some form of phase compensation to balance against variations of the phase imparted by diffraction orders of the IRG”) to a diffractive grating of the waveguide to offset the lateral separation of the colors ([0820], “The phase compensation at a given location on the lattice may be set according to the variation of the phase shift arising from spatial variations of the IRG”, [0823], “colour separation. Therefore, in some configurations it is preferable to set a maximum value for the magnitude of the x- and y-gradients of d.sub.x(x, y) and/or d.sub.y(x, y) to minimise unwanted optical degradation”, examiner interprets optical degradation to correspond to colour separation).
Regarding claim 5, Crosby further discloses wherein the diffractive grating comprises at least one of an exit pupil expander and an outcoupler ([0593], “an output element configured as an interleaved rectangular grating 2105”).
Regarding claim 9, Crosby discloses a device (Figs. 21-22), comprising:
a waveguide (2103) configured to guide display light ([0593], “a light transmissive substrate 2103 configured as a planar slab waveguide”), the waveguide comprising:
a first surface and a second surface (as shown in Fig. 21, 2103 has two opposing surfaces) that are non-parallel ([0847], “variation of thickness must be associated with a variation in the parallelism between the surfaces of a DWC”) and that laterally separate colors of the display light ([0847], “causing a loss of image sharpness, colour separation or distortion”); and a diffractive grating (2104, 2105) comprising a phase perturbation ([0807], “to include some form of phase compensation to balance against variations of the phase imparted by diffraction orders of the IRG”) configured to offset the lateral separation of the colors ([0820], “The phase compensation at a given location on the lattice may be set according to the variation of the phase shift arising from spatial variations of the IRG”, [0823], “colour separation. Therefore, in some configurations it is preferable to set a maximum value for the magnitude of the x- and y-gradients of d.sub.x(x, y) and/or d.sub.y(x, y) to minimise unwanted optical degradation”, examiner interprets optical degradation to correspond to colour separation).
Regarding claim 13, Crosby further discloses wherein the diffractive grating comprises at least one of an exit pupil expander and an outcoupler ([0593], “an output element configured as an interleaved rectangular grating 2105”).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby (US 2024/0019698) in view of Angervaks (US 2022/0091419).
Regarding claim 2, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein adding the phase perturbation comprises modifying at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches further discloses wherein adding the phase perturbation comprises modifying at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating ([0115], “an interference pattern of the pre-aberrated object wave 315′ and the aberration-free reference wave 316 may be recorded on the holographic medium fragment 212′, and thus the diffractive optical element 212 may be formed”, [0186], “an operation of increasing the geometric dimensions of the image by using the diffractive optical element 207”, examiner interprets the interference pattern to be a change in pitch as the image dimensions increase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the wherein adding the phase perturbation comprises modifying at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the waveguide comprises surface deformations that laterally separate colors of the display light.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches wherein the waveguide comprises surface deformations ([0044], “waveguide element may include a defect or inhomogeneity”, [0091], “aberrations that occurs due to the local structure may be detected”) that laterally separate colors of the display light ([0091], “The wave element or the recordable medium may have a defect (e.g., non-uniformity, unevenness, etc.) that causes an aberration”, examiner interprets the aberrations to correspond to lateral color separation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the wherein the waveguide comprises surface deformations that laterally separate colors of the display light as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Regarding claim 6, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: spatially varying the phase perturbation along a lateral position of the diffractive grating.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches further comprising: spatially varying the phase perturbation along a lateral position of the diffractive grating ([0130], “number, position, and structure of the diffractive optical elements 212 are not limited to the configuration illustrated in FIG. 4F, and may vary depending on the design of the virtual and augmented reality device 201”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the further comprising: spatially varying the phase perturbation along a lateral position of the diffractive grating as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the phase perturbation comprises a modification to at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches wherein the phase perturbation comprises a modification to at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating ([0115], “an interference pattern of the pre-aberrated object wave 315′ and the aberration-free reference wave 316 may be recorded on the holographic medium fragment 212′, and thus the diffractive optical element 212 may be formed”, [0186], “an operation of increasing the geometric dimensions of the image by using the diffractive optical element 207”, examiner interprets the interference pattern to be a change in pitch as the image dimensions increase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the wherein the phase perturbation comprises a modification to at least one of a pitch and rotation of the diffractive grating as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first surface and the second surface have deformations that laterally separate colors of the display light.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches wherein the first surface and the second surface have deformations ([0044], “waveguide element may include a defect or inhomogeneity”, [0091], “aberrations that occurs due to the local structure may be detected”) that laterally separate colors of the display light ([0091], “The wave element or the recordable medium may have a defect (e.g., non-uniformity, unevenness, etc.) that causes an aberration”, examiner interprets the aberrations to correspond to lateral color separation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the wherein the first surface and the second surface have deformations that laterally separate colors of the display light as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Regarding claim 14, Crosby discloses as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the phase perturbation varies spatially along a lateral position of the diffractive grating.
However Angervaks, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a waveguide, teaches wherein the phase perturbation varies spatially along a lateral position of the diffractive grating ([0130], “number, position, and structure of the diffractive optical elements 212 are not limited to the configuration illustrated in FIG. 4F, and may vary depending on the design of the virtual and augmented reality device 201”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method Crosby with the wherein the phase perturbation varies spatially along a lateral position of the diffractive grating as taught by Angervaks, for the purpose of increasing quality without aberrations ([0094]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8, 12, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein adding the phase perturbation comprises modifying a k-vector of the diffractive grating by an amount corresponding to a total thickness variation across the waveguide due to the non-parallel major surfaces.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest further comprising: guiding the display light through the diffractive grating to an eyebox of the waveguide with a spatial frequency of at least 20 cycles per degree for centroids of all colors of the display light.
Claim 8 is objected to due to dependency upon claim 7.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the phase perturbation is configured to modify a k-vector of the diffractive grating by an amount corresponding to a total thickness variation across the waveguide due to the non-parallel major surfaces.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the phase perturbation is configured to guide the display light through the diffractive grating to an eyebox of the waveguide with a spatial frequency of at least 20 cycles per degree for centroids of red, blue, and green display light.
Claim 16 is objected to due to dependency upon claim 15.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 17, Angervaks discloses an eyewear display device ([0205], “The holographic waveguide may be employed in a virtual and augmented reality device, and may be in the form of, for example, glasses”), comprising:
a waveguide (Figs. 2-5, element 204) configured to guide display light to an eyebox ([0105], “aberration-free virtual image 210 may be provided to the user's eye”), comprising:
non-parallel major surfaces ([0044], “waveguide element may include a defect or inhomogeneity”, examiner interprets this to mean the major surfaces are not parallel as they have defects) that laterally separate colors of the display light ([0091], “The wave element or the recordable medium may have a defect (e.g., non-uniformity, unevenness, etc.) that causes an aberration”, examiner interprets the aberrations to correspond to lateral color separation); and
a diffractive grating (206, 207, and 208) comprising a phase perturbation ([0093], “An interference pattern of an aberration-free reference wave and the pre-aberrated object wave may be recorded on the recordable medium as an aberration correction hologram pattern”).
However, the prior art of the prior art of Angervaks taken either singularly or in combination with any other prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the following:
“configured to modify a k-vector of the diffractive grating by an amount corresponding to a total thickness variation across the waveguide due to the non-parallel major surfaces”.
Claims 18-20 are allowed due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2 August 2026
Prosecution Insights