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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 09, 2023 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Three (3) sheets of drawings were filed on November 09, 2023.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 120. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “modification data” means. The specification when viewed in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation does not offer adequate guidance or examples, to determine:
The specific type of data
The form or data
The required characteristics or parameters of the data that would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention or avoid infringement.
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to provide a more precise definition or use alternative language that is explicitly defined within the written description.
Regarding claims 2-10; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Regarding claim 11, the scope of the claim is unclear due to multiple terms and phrases that are vague and subjective. Specifically, the following terms require clarification:
“enlarged grating”
The claim and specification do not clearly define how a grating is enlarged, or what range of values or dimensions qualify as “enlargement.”
“unused regions”
The claim and specification do not identify which regions qualify as “unused” meaning any region could potentially be designated as “unused” at the applicant’s discretion, rendering the claim scope limitless.
“imprinting a display system using the first waveguide”
In this context “imprinting” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the first waveguide is used as a template, a tool, or a component of the final display system itself.
The exact process involved in “imprinting the display system” using only the waveguide is not described with sufficient clarify to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the action.
“forming a second waveguide based on the first waveguide”
The relationship between the first waveguide and second waveguide is not defined.
The claim does clarify whether the first waveguide acts as a mold for the second waveguide; the second waveguide is a separate, identical copy of the first element, or if the second waveguide is a structural layer position physically below or above the first waveguide.
As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claim 11 has not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
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, 2, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valera et al. (US20150086163A1).
Regarding claim 1, Valera et al. discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a manufacturing device, a grating (common grating forming grating regions 8, 9 and the space there-between; see Figure 1A) for a waveguide (optical waveguide 2; the examiner notes that a waveguide which is further coated is inherently received at a manufacturing device where the coating is applied, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art); and
depositing a coating (coating; see the abstract) on the grating (portion of common grating below intermediate/second grating 10) based on modification data (location where intermediate/second grating 10 is formed) received by the manufacturing device at final processing for erasure of a region of the grating (first and second diffractive grating regions 8, 9 are fabricated as a common grating and a portion of the common grating where an intermediate/second grating 10 is formed is erased by a coating; see the abstract and Figure 1A).
In paragraph [0028] Valera teaches “a method of manufacturing an optical waveguide including forming a common grating in an optical substrate…”
In paragraph [0031] Valera teaches that “The process may include coating the parts of the common grating with an optically transmissive material therewith to substantially suppress diffraction by the coated parts.”
Regarding claim 2; Valera et al. discloses that receiving modification data comprises receiving the region on the grating that is erased based on an application of a waveguide product (i.e. wherein the second/intermediate grating is being formed; see the abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Valera et al. discloses:
wherein a preserved region of the grating (regions 8, 9) has an absence of the coating (see paragraph [0031 lines]).
Regarding claim 9, Valera discloses:
generating at least one of a left eyepiece or a right eyepiece from the waveguide (head or helmet mounted displays include left and right eyepieces as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art; see paragraph 11).
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.
Claims 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valera et al. (US20150086163A1) in view of Bohn (US20130163089A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5-6; Valera et al. teaches a method of manufacturing an optical waveguide with grating coated in an optically transmissive material, that could be used for a head or helmet mounted display (see paragraph [0011], but does not teach manufacturing the waveguide based on the field of view or interpupillary distance.
Bohn teaches reflective array waveguides for in display lens systems of a wearable device (e.g. glasses or head-mounted displays) (see paragraph [0013] and a method of depositing a coating on the gratings of the waveguide (see figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to manufacture an optical waveguide for a head-mounted display, adapting its design based on the specific type of eyewear, such as the required field of view or physical characteristics like interpupillary distance for the purpose of providing high quality images.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valera et al. (US20150086163A1) in view of Galiazzo et al. (WO2024165170A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 Valera et al. teaches a method of manufacturing an optical waveguide with grating coated in an optically transmissive material (see paragraph [0011], but does not teach depositing a coating on a grating through stencil or uLithography that would eliminate the light through the grating.
Galiazzo et al. teaches a method of depositing a coating on a grating by screen-printing (see page 8 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to coat parts of the grating with an optically transmissive material to prevent light from passing through using a common and suitable method of screen printing, which is a widely recognized form of stenciling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/T.N.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874