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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III, claims 15-20, in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s), applicant argues, that there is a lack of undue burden and that the subject matter among the groups is not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because there are no specific arguments and the examiner submits the restriction is proper as detailed in the restriction requirement mailed January 13, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 12, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 21, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 1: the phrase “the first refractive index” lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of this office action, the refractive index of the coating in claim 15 is interpreted as “a first refractive index” clarifying the antecedent basis in claim 16, and is what appears to be intended by applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calafiore (U.S. Patent 10,690,831, hereinafter referred to as Calafiore). Calafiore anticipates claims:
15. A reflective waveguide (see figure 4B), comprising:
a grating structure (projections 450 are interpreted as forming the grating structure) on a substrate (402), the grating structure comprising a series of active facets (the first sides 421 are interpreted as the active facets, see figures 4A and 4B, unlabeled in figure 4B, but clearly present and identified in figure 4A) and inactive facets (second sides 422 are interpreted as the inactive facets), wherein the active facets are non-selectively coated with a partially reflective coating (grating lines 418B are interpreted as the partially reflective coating) having a first thickness (see figure 4B) and a first refractive index that approximately matches a refractive index of the substrate (the refractive indices are interpreted as being matched as they work together, match, to create a functioning device; additionally and separately they’re interpreted as being approximately equal in value, which also would meet the requirement of the claim); and
the inactive facets are coated with the partially reflective coating having a second thickness thinner (see figure 4B, the bottom leftmost portion of the coating 418B is shown in contact with the inactive facets as the portion of the coating tapers to a point, this smallest point is shown as having a thickness thinner than the rest of the coating, meeting the requirement of the claim) than the first thickness have an angle with respect to a normal of the substrate of less than approximately 20 degrees (see figure 4B, the angle of the inactive facets is shown to be tiled from the normal of the substrate and are interpreted as having a negative angle value, which is less than 20 degrees).
16. The reflective waveguide of claim 15, wherein the first refractive index and the refractive index of the substrate differ by less than approximately 0.1 (the refractive indices are interpreted as differing by less than approximately 0.1, as required by the claim).
17. The reflective waveguide of claim 15, wherein the second thickness is less than approximately 70% of the first thickness (see figure 4B, the second thickness tapers down to a point, and the thickness is interpreted as being compared at a position where the second thickness is less than approximately 70% of the first thickness as required).
18. The reflective waveguide of claim 15, wherein the partially reflective coating comprises a plurality of layers (see figure 4B, each ridge has a layer creating a plurality of layers) and wherein the first refractive index is an average refractive index of the plurality of layers (all the layers are made of the same material and the average refractive index of the plurality of layers is interpreted as the refractive index of each of the layers).
19. The reflective waveguide of claim 18, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is less than approximately 200 nm thick (the thickness of each layer is interpreted as being less than approximately 200nm).
20. The reflective waveguide of claim 15, wherein the angle of each inactive facet relative to the normal of the substrate varies based on angular distance to a pupil of a user of an eyewear display device implementing the reflective waveguide (as the distance to a pupil of a user can be set to be any value, it is interpreted that whatever variance there is or is desired, including no variance, can be interpreted as being based on the angular distance, which can be changed to any value at will or as any frame of reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights