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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 6th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angervaks (US 2022/0091419).
Regarding claim 1, Angervaks discloses a method ([0117], “a method may produce a holographic waveguide configured to correct aberrations when manufactured”) comprising:
guiding display light through a waveguide (Figs. 2-5, element 204) having surface deformations ([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); and
adding a phase perturbation to a diffractive grating ([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”) of the waveguide to offset the lateral separation of the colors ([0099], “diffractive optical elements 206, 207, and 208, at least one of which has recorded thereon the aberration correction hologram pattern”).
Regarding claim 2, Angervaks 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).
Regarding claim 3, Angervaks further discloses wherein the waveguide comprises 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).
Regarding claim 5, Angervaks further discloses wherein the diffractive grating comprises at least one of an exit pupil expander and an outcoupler ([0097], “output diffractive optical element 208”).
Regarding claim 6, Angervaks further discloses 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”).
Regarding claim 9, Angervaks discloses a device (Fiugs. 2-5, element 200), comprising:
a waveguide (204) configured to guide display light (205), the waveguide comprising:
a first major surface and a second major surface (as shown in Fig. 3, 204 has two major surfaces) having deformations ([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); 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”) configured to offset the lateral separation of the colors ([0099], “diffractive optical elements 206, 207, and 208, at least one of which has recorded thereon the aberration correction hologram pattern”).
Regarding claim 10, Angervaks further discloses 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).
Regarding claim 11, Angervaks further discloses wherein the first major surface and the second major surface are non-parallel ([0044], “waveguide element may include a defect or inhomogeneity”, examiner interprets this to mean the major surfaces are not parallel as they have defects).
Regarding claim 13, Angervaks further discloses wherein the diffractive grating comprises at least one of an exit pupil expander and an outcoupler ([0097], “output diffractive optical element 208”).
Regarding claim 14, Angervaks further discloses 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”).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Simmonds (US 2016/0320536), Komatsu (US 2019/0004317), Muenz (US 2020/0225475), Muravev (US 2023/0185101), Farrell (US 12,298,551), and Rao (CN 118226563 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) teach a device, comprising: a waveguide configured to guide display light, the waveguide comprising: a first major surface and a second major surface having deformations that laterally separate colors of the display light; and a diffractive grating comprising a phase perturbation configured to offset the lateral separation of the colors.
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 16 January 2026