Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/528,587

OPTICAL COMBINERS FOR BINOCULAR DISPARITY DETECTION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 04, 2023
Examiner
NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R
Art Unit
2424
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
583 granted / 704 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, which were necessitated by amendment. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 10, and 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. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because it recites “locally centrally.” It is assumed “locally” should instead read located. 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. Claim 1-4, 6-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn, US 2018/0098056 in view of Chi et al., US 2020/0225479. Claims 1 and 17 and 19. Bohn teaches an optical binocular disparity detection device, the disparity detection device comprising: a left image source for displaying a left image to a user’s left eye; a right image source for displaying a right image to the user’s right eye [left and right imagers 22, Figs. 2-4, paras. 26-30]; and an optical combiner [combiner optic 29, Figs. 2, 4, 5, paras. 26, 30-34], including: a left input configured to receive a left image into the optical combiner [lens 28L, Figs. 2, 4, 5, paras. 30, 32]; a right input configured to receive a right image into the optical combiner [lens 28R, Figs. 2, 4, 5, paras. 30, 32]; a single image sensor configured to receive and sense the left image and the right image from the output grating, and to generate data indicative of a disparity between the left image and the right image [camera 27, Figs. 2, 4, 5, paras. 29-33]. Bohn is silent on an output grating and output director on opposite surfaces. Chi teaches a waveguide display including an output grating position on a first surface of the optical combiner and configured to direct the left image and the right image external to the optical combiner [e.g. first grating 630 on surface 612, Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]; and an output director positioned on a second surface of the optical combiner opposite the first surface [e.g. second output grating 630 is located on opposite surface 614 of waveguide, Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, separating the gratings in order to enlarge the eyebox of the display while minimizing display haze [see Chi, paras. 37, 78 80]. 2. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 1, wherein the optical combiner comprises a waveguide combiner [optical combiner 29 is a waveguide, Fig. 5, para. 33]. 3 and 20 (from 2 and 19). Bohn teaches left and right inputs and an output from the combiner [lenses 28, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 8, paras. 30, 32; combining interface 52, Fig. 5, paras. 33], the output being [located] centrally in the optical combiner [e.g. Fig. 8 shows a centrally located output]. Chi teaches gratings for the inputs/output elements [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 4. Chi teaches the disparity detection device of claim 3, wherein each of the left input grating, right input grating, and the output grating is selected from the group consisting of: a polarization volume hologram grating, a surface relief grating [e.g. surface ridges, para. 179], and a volume Bragg grating para. 80]. 6. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 2, wherein the waveguide combiner further comprises: a left internal reflection region for transmitting the left image from the left input to the output [surface 51, Fig. 5, para. 33]; and a right internal reflection region for transmitting the right image from the right input to the output [interface 52, Fig. 5, para. 33]. Chi teaches output gratings [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 7. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 2, wherein the waveguide combiner further comprises an output light director on an opposing side of the waveguide combiner from the output, the output light director comprising at least one of a mirror or a grating [interface 52 reflects (i.e. mirrors) light and is opposed to the output surface of the combiner 29, Fig. 5, para. 33]. Chi teaches output gratings [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 8. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 2, wherein the waveguide combiner further comprises: left light director on an opposing side of the waveguide combiner from the left input, the left light director comprising at least one of a mirror or a grating [surface 51 reflects (mirrors) light and is on opposing side of combiner from input lens 28L, Fig. 5, para. 33; also see Figs. 7, 8, paras. 36-38]; and a right light director on an opposing side of the waveguide combiner from the right input, the right light director comprising at least one of a mirror or a grating [interface 52 is opposed to right input lens 28R and is reflective (a mirror), Fig. 5, para. 33; also see Figs. 7, 8, paras. 36-38]. 9. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 2, wherein the waveguide combiner further comprises: a left output mirror for directing the left image toward the output [surface 51, Fig. 5, para. 33; also see Figs. 7, 8, paras. 36-38]; and a right output mirror for directing the right image toward the output [interface 52, Fig. 5, para. 33; also see Figs. 7, 8, paras. 36-38]. Chi teaches output gratings [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 11. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 1, wherein the optical combiner includes a left prism for directing the left image from the left input to the output and a right prism for directing the right image from the right input to the output [73L, 73R, Fig. 7, paras. 37, 38; single combiner optic 29 may also be a prism, and direct left and right images, Figs. 2, 5, para. 30, 33; also see Figs. 7, 8, paras. 36-38]. Chi teaches output gratings [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 14. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 1, wherein the single image sensor comprises at least one of: a single charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor [CCD, para. 30], or a single complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor. 15. Bohn teaches the disparity detection device of claim 1, wherein the output comprises a central output centrally located between the left input and the right input [output is along axis 76, centered between L/R inputs, e.g. Fig. 8, paras. 36-38]. Chi teaches output gratings [Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, paras. 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96, 105]. 18. Bohn teaches the binocular display system of claim 17, wherein the left image source comprises a left projector and the right image source comprises a right projector [e.g. OLED, which projects light, paras. 26-30]. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn and Chi as cited above in view of Kennedy et al., US 2003/0185516. 12. Chi teaches the use of gratings, but the above references are silent on a lens focusing light for the sensor. Kennedy teaches an optical system comprising an optical lens between the output of a waveguide and an image sensor, the optical lens configured to focus light from the output for receipt by the single image sensor [Figs. 1, 2, paras. 22, 25, 26, 45]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a lens as an efficient and conventional manner to ensure that the desired light beams (i.e. both the left and right images) enter the sensor in focus. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn and Chi as cited above. 13. Bohn is silent on the sensor being an array of pixels. Official notice is taken that it was conventional and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a sensor as an array of light detection pixels. Before that time, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement such a sensor in Bohn’s system, since a single pixel array sensor can be obtained easily and cheaply and will provide a digital output that can be used to compare left and right images. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time. 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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. /TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2023
Application Filed
May 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 27, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579809
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICES, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODS AND VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581028
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579630
MODULAR OPTICAL INSPECTION STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571738
Apparatus and Method for Automatic Monitoring of Lids of Beverage and Food Cans
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563262
Media System with Presentation Area Data Analysis and Segment Insertion Feature
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month