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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Request for Continuing Examination filed on 06/02/2026 and the amendment filed on 05/05/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 remain pending in the application. No claims were amended.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application of National Stage entry of PCT/FI2022/050166, international filing date of 03/15/2022 claims foreign priority to FI 20215292, filed 03/17/2021 (Finland).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-5, 7-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, of record) US 20200142202 A1, in view of Pockett et al. (hereafter Pockett, of record) US 20100277803 A1, and further in view of Olkkonen et al. (hereafter Olkkonen, of record) US 20180081176 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display structure (waveguide display e.g. 300, 400, 700,1200, of near-eye display NED see abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 51-53,63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], where similar examples 300, 700 and 1200 will be referenced for brevity, e.g. Figs. 3-4,7,12), comprising:
a waveguide (320, 720, 1220, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3-4,7,12) comprising a first face extending laterally along a base plane, a second face opposite the first face (i.e. first side 370 along base plane of the first side, and second side face 380 opposite the first side, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in 4,7,12), and an in-coupling region on the first face (region of coupling element e.g. 350 on first side 370, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12);
an in-coupling structure (coupling element e.g. 350, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for coupling an optical beam (image light e.g. 355 paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) into the waveguide (e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) via the in-coupling region (region of coupling element e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for propagation in the waveguide (e.g. 320) by total internal reflection (i.e. as total internally reflected image light in the output waveguide 320, paragraphs [67, 70, 75-79, 120]); and
an out-coupling structure (decoupling elements e.g. 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) configured to perform exit pupil expansion by pupil replication along at least a first replication direction (as decoupling elements perform 2-D expansion of image light (355) along replication directions i.e. 2-D e.g. including x-, y-axis directions, paragraphs [65-67, 120-122]) and to couple light from the optical beam out of the waveguide (as decoupling elements decouple the image light e.g. 355 out of the waveguide e.g. 320 as image light e.g. 340, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12);
wherein the in-coupling region has a maximum width, Wmax, measured along the first replication direction (i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, e.g. paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 , which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7, and applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4);
the waveguide has a thickness, T (e.g. thickness along z-direction of waveguide e.g. 320, e.g. between 0.3 to 1 mm, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12, as Fig. 12, which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7) measured from the first face to the second face (i.e. as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12), greater than 0.25 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given that thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than ¼ times the height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69,119, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12); and
wherein the outcoupling structure (decoupling element e.g. 360 and equivalents) comprises a diffractive first out- coupling element and a diffractive second out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping the first out-coupling element (as laterally overlapping diffraction gratings 360A and 360B, and equivalents in Figs. 4,7,12, paragraphs [66-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166]).
Lee therefore teaches the features of the invention but does not mention the waveguide thickness and size (height/width) of coupling element region in the same example (i.e. as the as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380 of the output waveguide 320, is mentioned with display 300 descriptions, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12, and the size of i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, is mentioned in display 1200, paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Fig. 12, which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7and can be applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4).
Additionally Pockett teaches in the same field of invention of display device with two operating modes (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10-11, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,04-18, 52-62,77-79]) and further notes that the above ratio i.e. T> (constant e.g. ¼) Wmax, i.e. Wmax/T < (constant), as the ratio W1/D1 is significant for waveguides of HUD devices, i.e. the ratio of the width W1 to the distance D1 may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, since otherwise a fraction of in-coupled light may be coupled again out of the substrate 7 by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Therefore, given that all examples (300,400,700,1200) have the same general structures and shapes and have the output waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the same waveguide thickness of waveguide display 300 for waveguide display 1200 (or 700), and/or to consider the same size (e.g. height) of coupling element region of waveguide display 1200 (700) for size of waveguide display 300 (or 400]) in order to provide image light to the eyebox and user’s eye with waveguide and display having small form factor, a large field of view, and a large eyebox, (see Lee paragraphs [02-03, 73,67-69,128,145,171]).
Furthermore, one would be motivated to combine and use the thickens of output waveguide of one example of waveguide display (300) of Lee for the thickness of output waveguide of another example (i.e. 700, 1200) having specific width or height of coupling element (e.g. 1250A), given that Pockett teaches that this ratio (W1/D1) is significant for waveguides of HUD devices, because the ratio of the width W1 of input grating to the distance/thickness D1 of the waveguide may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, and avoid that a fraction of in-coupled light to be coupled again out of the substrate by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Further, Lee thus teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the out-coupling structure (waveguide portion with decoupling elements 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) and at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (overlapping 360A and 360B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12), but Lee is silent that it further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (320), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. 360A,B or equivalents).
However, Olkkonen teaches in the same field of invention of an optical see-through display element and a display device (as NED, HMD see Figs. 1-5, abstract, paragraphs [01, 12-40, 56-69], including diffractive out-coupling structures with multi-layer gratings, e.g. Figs. 1-2), and further teaches that the out-coupling structure further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (20), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. as additional grating is added to the waveguide 20 outcoupling structure between and overlapping with first and second outcoupling gratings, 24A-C, and 26A-B, as such additional grating 25 with multilayer structure can further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the waveguide outcoupling structure with decoupling element gratings of Lee to include third out-coupling diffractive element arranged within the waveguide and overlapping first and second outcoupling elements according to teachings of Olkkonen, in order to further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the thickness, T, of the waveguide is greater than or equal to 0.35 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given the range(s) of thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than .35 or .4 times the height range of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69, 116-122, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the in-coupling structure comprises a diffractive in-coupling element (coupling element 350 may be, e.g., a diffraction grating, a holographic grating, paragraphs [66-69, 116-122, 149-155], Figs. 3-4 and equivalents in Figs. 7,12).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the in-coupling structure (2200) comprises an in- coupling prism (coupling element 350 may be, e.g., one or more prismatic surface elements, paragraphs [66-69, 116-122, 149-155], Figs. 3-4 and equivalents in Figs. 7,12).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the first out-coupling element is arranged on the first face, and the second out-coupling element is arranged on the second face (as e.g. first decoupling 360A is on first side face 370, and e.g. second decoupling 360B is on second side face 380, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the thickness, T, of the waveguide is greater than or equal to 0.5, or to 0.6, or to 0.7, or to 0.8, or to 0.9 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given the range(s) of thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than ½ or .6 times the height range of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69, 116-122, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the thickness, T, of the waveguide is less than or equal to 0.5 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given the range(s) of thickness of e.g. 320 is less than or equal to ½ times the height range of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69, 116-122, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) comprising a display engine for directing the optical beam (3201) to the in-coupling structure (i.e. as source assembly e.g. 310 with controller 330, for directing image light e.g. 355 to the coupling element e.g. 350, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the display engine (e.g. 310 and equivalents) is implemented as a scanner-based display engine (i.e. as light source assembly is implemented as scanning light source assembly, e.g. paragraphs [04, 52, 70, 76, 83,125], Figs. 3,4,7,12).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the display engine (e.g. 310 and equivalents) is implemented as a laser-scanning display engine (i.e. as light source assembly is implemented as scanning light source assembly, having a laser source 410, and scanning optics system 415, or as tunable/scanning laser source, see e.g. paragraphs [04, 52, 70, 75-76, 83,125], Figs. 3,4,7,12).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, of record) US 20200142202 A1, in view of Pockett et al. (hereafter Pockett, of record) US 20100277803 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display device (NED 100, paragraphs [02-06, 51-53,58-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], e.g. Figs. 1-4,7,12), comprising a display structure (as near-eye display NED e.g. 100, with the waveguide display e.g. 300, 400, 700,1200 for the near-eye display NED see abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 51-53,63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], e.g. Figs. 1-4,7,12), wherein the display structure comprises:
a waveguide (320, 720, 1220, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3-4,7,12) comprising a first face extending laterally along a base plane, a second face opposite the first face (i.e. first side 370 along base plane of the first side, and second side face 380 opposite the first side, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in 4,7,12), and an in-coupling region on the first face (region of coupling element e.g. 350 on first side 370, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12);
an in-coupling structure (coupling element e.g. 350, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for coupling an optical beam (image light e.g. 355 paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) into the waveguide (e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) via the in-coupling region (region of coupling element e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for propagation in the waveguide (e.g. 320) by total internal reflection (i.e. as total internally reflected image light in the output waveguide 320, paragraphs [67, 70, 75-79, 120]); and
an out-coupling structure (decoupling elements e.g. 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) configured to perform exit pupil expansion by pupil replication along at least a first replication direction (as decoupling elements perform 2-D expansion of image light (355) along replication directions i.e. 2-D e.g. including x-, y-axis directions, paragraphs [65-67, 120-122]) and to couple light from the optical beam out of the waveguide (as decoupling elements decouple the image light e.g. 355 out of the waveguide e.g. 320 as image light e.g. 340, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12);
wherein the in-coupling region has a maximum width, Wmax, measured along the first replication direction (i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, e.g. paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 , which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7, and applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4);
the waveguide has a thickness, T (e.g. thickness along z-direction of waveguide e.g. 320, e.g. between 0.3 to 1 mm, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12, as Fig. 12, which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7) measured from the first face to the second face (i.e. as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12), greater than 0.25 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given that thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than ¼ times the height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69,119, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12); and
the outcoupling structure (decoupling element e.g. 360 and equivalents) comprises a diffractive first out- coupling element and a diffractive second out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping the first out-coupling element (as laterally overlapping diffraction gratings 360A and 360B, and equivalents in Figs. 4,7,12, paragraphs [66-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166]).
Lee therefore teaches the features of the invention but does not mention the waveguide thickness and size (height/width) of coupling element region in the same example (i.e. as the as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380 of the output waveguide 320, is mentioned with display 300 descriptions, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalent in Figs. 7,12, and the size of i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, is mentioned in display 1200, paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Fig. 12, which is isometric view 1200 of the tenth design of the waveguide display shown in FIG. 7and can be applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4).
Additionally Pockett teaches in the same field of invention of display device with two operating modes (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10-11, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,04-18, 52-62,77-79]) and further teaches that the above ratio i.e. T> (constant e.g. ¼) Wmax, i.e. Wmax/T < (constant), as the ratio W1/D1 is significant for waveguides of HUD devices (i.e. the ratio of the width W1 to the distance D1 may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, since otherwise a fraction of in-coupled light may be coupled again out of the substrate 7 by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Therefore, given that all examples (300,400,700,1200) have the same general structures and shapes and have the output waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the same waveguide thickness of waveguide display 300 for waveguide display 1200 (or 700), and/or to consider the same size (e.g. height) of coupling element region of waveguide display 1200 (700) for size of waveguide display 300 (or 400]) in order to provide image light to the eyebox and user’s eye with waveguide and display having small form factor, a large field of view, and a large eyebox, (see Lee paragraphs [02-03, 73,67-69,128,145,171]).
Furthermore, one would be motivated to combine and use the thickens of output waveguide of one example of waveguide display (300) of Lee for the thickness of output waveguide of another example (i.e. 700, 1200) having specific width or height of coupling element (e.g. 1250A), given that Pockett teaches that this ratio (W1/D1) is significant for waveguides of HUD devices, because the ratio of the width W1 of input grating to the distance/thickness D1 of the waveguide may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, and avoid that a fraction of in-coupled light to be coupled again out of the substrate by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the display device of claim 11 implemented as a see-through display device (e.g. as near-eye display NED see-through e.g. 100, with the waveguide display e.g. 300, 400, 700,1200 for the near-eye display NED see abstract, paragraphs [51-53,57-58, 63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], e.g. Figs. 1-4,7,12).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the display device of claim 11 implemented as a head-mounted display device (e.g. as head-mounted display, HMD near-eye display NED see-through e.g. 100, with the waveguide display e.g. 300, 400, 700,1200 for the near-eye display NED see abstract, paragraphs [51-53,57-58, 63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], e.g. Figs. 1-4,7,12).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, of record) US 20200142202 A1 and further in view of Olkkonen et al. (hereafter Olkkonen, of record) US 20180081176 A1 and further in view of Pockett et al. (hereafter Pockett, of record) US 20100277803 A1
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the Lee Olkkonen combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the diffractive third out-coupling element (i.e. as additional grating e.g. 25 adapted waveguide 320, 720, 1220, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3-4,7,12), per combination with Olkkonen paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C), but is silent that it comprises a volume holographic grating. However, Pockett teaches in the same field of invention of a head mounted display device (see e.g. Figs. 1-12, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [13-16,52-62], including optical engine source 20, diffractive input/output gratings 12,14,16 and waveguide substrate 7,10), and further teaches that third out-coupling element comprises a volume holographic grating (i.e. as gratings including output grating 16 may be holographic volume grating embedded in the substrate 7, providing improved brightness of the displayed virtual image and substantially enlarged viewing aperture of the virtual image without increasing the weight and/or size of the display device, see paragraphs [13-16,52-62]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the third out-coupling element of Lee and Olkkonen to comprise volume holographic grating according to teachings of Pockett in order to provide improved brightness of the displayed virtual image and substantially enlarged viewing aperture of the virtual image without increasing the weight and/or size of the display device, see paragraphs [14-16,56-60]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues on page 3-5 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Lee and Olkkonen does not disclose or render obvious presumably the limitations that (1) “the waveguide has a thickness, T, measured from the first face to the second face, greater than 0.25 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region”, because the different embodiments were used in the rejection which is also based on hindsight; (2) “the outcoupling structure comprises a diffractive first out-coupling elements a diffractive second out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping the first out- coupling element” because allegedly decoupling elements (e.g. 360A, 360B) do not share common lateral projection; and (3) ” a diffractive third out-coupling element arranged within the waveguide, the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element”, given that Lee has two decoupling elements that are allegedly not laterally overlapping and has no third out-coupling element, while Olkkonen allegedly does not disclose at least partly laterally overlapping its three out-coupling elements, and since neither Lee or Olkkonen discuss in-coupling loss caused by multiple reflections at the in-coupling region as a problem, nor suggests lateral overlapping approach increases the spatial density of exit sub-pupils and allows the waveguide thickness to be increased; lastly that "rationale" for modifying Lee, for improving out-coupling efficiency does not provide a teaching or motivation to to increase waveguide thickness relative to the in-coupling region width, or adopt a three-element laterally overlapping out-coupling structure, as modifications are unrelated to the rationale and are only derived from Applicant's disclosure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue the cited prior art of Lee teaches most and in combination with Olkkonen teaches and renders obvious all limitations of amened claim 1, as Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display structure (waveguide display e.g. 300, 400, 700,1200, of near-eye display NED see abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 51-53,63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], where similar examples 300, 700 and 1200 will be referenced for brevity, e.g. Figs. 3-4,7,12), comprising: a waveguide (320, 720, 1220, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3-4,7,12) comprising a first face extending laterally along a base plane, a second face opposite the first face (i.e. first side 370 along base plane of the first side, and second side face 380 opposite the first side, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in 4,7,12), and an in-coupling region on the first face (region of coupling element e.g. 350 on first side 370, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12); an in-coupling structure (coupling element e.g. 350, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for coupling an optical beam (image light e.g. 355 paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) into the waveguide (e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) via the in-coupling region (region of coupling element e.g. 320, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) for propagation in the waveguide (e.g. 320) by total internal reflection (i.e. as total internally reflected image light in the output waveguide 320, paragraphs [67, 70, 75-79, 120]); and an out-coupling structure (decoupling elements e.g. 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) configured to perform exit pupil expansion by pupil replication along at least a first replication direction (as decoupling elements perform 2-D expansion of image light (355) along replication directions i.e. 2-D e.g. including x-, y-axis directions, paragraphs [65-67, 120-122]) and to couple light from the optical beam out of the waveguide (as decoupling elements decouple the image light e.g. 355 out of the waveguide e.g. 320 as image light e.g. 340, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12); wherein the in-coupling region has a maximum width, Wmax, measured along the first replication direction (i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, e.g. paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4,7); the waveguide has a thickness, T (e.g. thickness along z-direction of waveguide e.g. 320, e.g. between 0.3 to 1 mm, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12) measured from the first face to the second face (i.e. as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12), greater than 0.25 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region (i.e. given that thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than ¼ times the height width of coupling element e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69,119, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12); and wherein the outcoupling structure (decoupling element e.g. 360 and equivalents) comprises a diffractive first out- coupling element and a diffractive second out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping the first out-coupling element (as laterally overlapping diffraction gratings 360A and 360B, and equivalents in Figs. 4,7,12, paragraphs [66-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166]).
Additionally Pockett teaches in the same field of invention of display device with two operating modes (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10-11, title, abstract, paragraphs [01,04-18, 52-62,77-79]) and further teaches that the above ratio i.e. T> ¼ Wmax, i.e. Wmax/T < 4, as the ratio W1/D1 is significant for waveguides of HUD devices (i.e. the ratio of the width W1 to the distance D1 may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, since otherwise a fraction of in-coupled light may be coupled again out of the substrate 7 by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Lee therefore teaches the features of the invention but does not mention the waveguide thickness and size (height/width) of coupling element region in the same example (i.e. as the as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, is mentioned with display 300 descriptions, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12, and the size of i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, is mentioned in display 1200, paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 and can be applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4,7).
Therefore, given that all examples (300,400,700,1200) have the same general structures and shapes and have the output waveguide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the same waveguide thickness of waveguide display 300 for waveguide display 1200 (or 700), and/or to consider the same size (e.g. height) of coupling element region of waveguide display 1200 (700) for size of waveguide display 300 (or 400]) in order to provide image light to the eyebox and user’s eye with waveguide and display having small form factor, a large field of view, and a large eyebox, (see Lee paragraphs [02-03, 73,67-69,128,145,171]).
Furthermore, one would be motivated to combine and use the thickens of output waveguide of one example of waveguide display (300) of Lee for the thickness of output waveguide of another example (i.e. 700, 1200) having specific width or height of coupling element (e.g. 1250A), given that Pockett teaches that this ratio (W1/D1) is significant for waveguides of HUD devices, because the ratio of the width W1 of input grating to the distance/thickness D1 of the waveguide may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, and avoid that a fraction of in-coupled light to be coupled again out of the substrate by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Further, Lee thus teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the out-coupling structure (waveguide portion with decoupling elements 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) and at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (overlapping 360A and 360B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12), but Lee is silent that it further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (320), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. 360A,B or equivalents). However, Olkkonen teaches in the same field of invention of an optical see-through display element and a display device (as NED, HMD see Figs. 1-5, abstract, paragraphs [01, 12-40, 56-69], including diffractive out-coupling structures with multi-layer gratings, e.g. Figs. 1-2), and further teaches that the out-coupling structure further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (20), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. as additional grating is added to the waveguide 20 outcoupling structure between and overlapping with first and second outcoupling gratings, 24A-C, and 26A-B, as such additional grating 25 with multilayer structure can further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the waveguide outcoupling structure with decoupling element gratings of Lee to include third out-coupling diffractive element arranged within the waveguide and overlapping first and second outcoupling elements according to teachings of Olkkonen, in order to further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C). Specifically, Lee teaches the an out-coupling structure (decoupling elements e.g. 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) configured to perform exit pupil expansion by pupil replication along at least a first replication direction (as decoupling elements perform 2-D expansion of image light (355) along replication directions i.e. 2-D e.g. including x-, y-axis directions, paragraphs [65-67, 120-122]) and to couple light from the optical beam out of the waveguide (as decoupling elements decouple the image light e.g. 355 out of the waveguide e.g. 320 as image light e.g. 340, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12), and the in-coupling region has a maximum width, Wmax, measured along the first replication direction i.e. as the width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, width 10-20 mm and/or height of 2-5 mm, e.g. paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4,7. Specifically, the width here is disclosed for embodiment of Fig. 12, as Lee does not offer such width dimension for example of Figs. 3-4. Moreover, the thickness of the waveguide was taught by Lee, as Lee teaches the waveguide has a thickness, T e.g. thickness along z-direction of waveguide of embodiment example e.g. 320, e.g. between 0.3 to 1 mm, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12, where this thickness corresponds to height of 2-5 mm in embodiment of Fig. 12) measured from the first face to the second face (i.e. as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12). Lee further disclose that this thickness is greater than 0.25 times the maximum width, Wmax, of the in-coupling region, i.e. given that thickness of e.g. 320 is greater than ¼ times the width of coupling element, e.g. 1250A, 350 e.g. paragraphs [63-69,119, 149-155], Figs. 3,12 and equivalents in Figs.3,4,7,12). Specifically, this limitation is not disclosed in embodiment of Figs. 3-4, since Lee does not provide the maximum width of the of the in-coupling region, rather the thickness and width are disclosed for embodiment of Fig. 12, and the disclosed ranges of the maximum width and thickness full fill the claimed requirement that the thickness is greater than 0.25 times the width. This was previously stated as Lee teaches the features of the invention but does not mention the waveguide thickness and size (height/width) of coupling element region in the same example (i.e. as the as thickness along z-axis direction from first face 370 to second face 380, is mentioned with display 300 descriptions, paragraphs [63-69,119] e.g. Figs. 3-4 and applied to equivalents in Figs. 7,12, and the size of i.e. width or height of coupling element e.g. 1250A, in replication direction including x- and/or y-axis direction, 10-20 mm and/or 2-5 mm, is mentioned in display 1200, paragraphs [149-155,166], e.g. Figs. 12 and can be applied to equivalents in Figs. 3-4,7). However, given that all examples (300,400,700,1200) have the same general structures, shapes and functions, it was noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the same waveguide thickness of waveguide display 300 for waveguide display 1200 (or 700), and/or to consider the same size (e.g. height) of coupling element region of waveguide display 1200 for size of waveguide display 300 (or 400, 700]) in order to provide image light to the eyebox and user’s eye with waveguide and display having small form factor, a large field of view, and a large eyebox, paragraphs [02-03, 73,67-69,128,145,171]). Hence the cited prior art of Lee teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 including the limitations noted under issue (1) above. This is further supported by Pockett, as one would be motivated to combine and use the thickens of output waveguide of one example of waveguide display (300) of Lee for the thickness of output waveguide of another example (i.e. 700, 1200) having specific width or height of coupling element (e.g. 1250A), given that Pockett teaches that this ratio (W1/D1) is significant for waveguides of HUD devices, because the ratio of the width W1 of input grating to the distance/thickness D1 of the waveguide may be selected to be smaller than or equal to a predetermined limit in order to minimize light out-coupling by the input grating, and avoid that a fraction of in-coupled light to be coupled again out of the substrate by the input grating 10, see paragraphs [77-79], Fig. 10).
Additionally, the motivation for the modification was taken from the Lee reference. It was not based on “rationale” e.g. improving out-coupling efficiency, stated by the Applicant, or allegedly derived from the Applicant’s disclosure. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, Lee expressly teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the out-coupling structure (waveguide portion with decoupling elements 360A,B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12) and at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (overlapping 360A and 360B, paragraphs [63-70, 74-80, 116-122,149-166], Figs. 3, and equivalents in Figs.4,7,12). As clearly visible from e.g. Fig. 3, and other Figures 4, 7, 12, the two decoupling elements 360A,360B are laterally overlapping. Using Applicant’s own description of the term “at least partly laterally overlapping" may refer to at least partial, i.e., partial or complete, overlapping of the projections of said first and second elements on a base plane (see published specification paragraph [0038]), or Applicant’s Remarks as overlap in projection along the thickness direction of the waveguide, the two decoupling elements are laterally overlapping, as they overlap in projection in the thickness direction, as clearly visible from e.g. Figs. 3, 4, 7, 12, the two decoupling elements 360A,360B are laterally overlapping. Hence the cited prior art of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 including the limitations noted under issue (2) above. Applicant’s disclosure show the same overlap in disclosed Figure 1, where the two outcoupling structures are overlapping in thickness direction. It is therefore unclear how is the term “lateral overlap” supposed to be understood and treated. The Applicant has not explained how and in what sense is the lateral overlap as overlap in projection along the thickness direction of the waveguide different in the instant application (e.g. see Fig. 1, 2) from prior art (see Lee e.g. Figs. 3,4,7,12). Regarding issue (3), as noted above, Lee is silent that it further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (320), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. 360A,B or equivalents, which are laterally overlapping as presented above). Hence Olkkonen was relied upon. Olkkonen teaches in the same field of invention of an optical see-through display element and a display device (as NED, HMD see Figs. 1-5, abstract, paragraphs [01, 12-40, 56-69], including diffractive out-coupling structures with multi-layer gratings, e.g. Figs. 1-2), and further teaches that the out-coupling structure further comprises a diffractive third out- coupling element arranged within the waveguide (20), the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element (i.e. as additional grating is added to the waveguide 20 outcoupling structure between and overlapping with first and second outcoupling gratings, 24A-C, and 26A-B, as such additional grating 25 with multilayer structure can further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C). The issue over lateral overlap is unclear, since outcoupling gratings of Olkkonen are laterally overlapping, as they overlap in projection in the thickness direction, as clearly visible from e.g. Figs. 2C,2A,2B, the three decoupling elements 24, 26 and 25 are laterally overlapping. Here it is also unclear how is the term “lateral overlap” is supposed to be understood and treated. The Applicant has not explained how and in what sense is the lateral overlap as overlap in projection along the thickness direction of the waveguide different in the instant application (e.g. see Fig. 1, 2) from prior art (see Olkkonen e.g. Figs. 2A-C). Lastly, the combination with Olkkonen was properly motivated, as it was noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the waveguide outcoupling structure with decoupling element gratings of Lee to include third out-coupling diffractive element arranged within the waveguide and overlapping first and second outcoupling elements according to teachings of Olkkonen, in order to further add to the out-coupling efficiency of the element, see paragraphs [12-40, 56-69], Figs. 1-2,2C). The motivation for the modification was taken from the teachings and disclosure of Olkkonen reference. It was not based on “rationale” e.g. improving out-coupling efficiency, stated by the Applicant, or allegedly derived from the Applicant’s disclosure. Hence the cited prior art of Lee in combination with cited prior art of Olkkonen teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 including the limitations noted under issue (3) above.
Applicant’s arguments of the unworkability of the combination, due to actual structure of Olkkonen output gratings, appear to be based on a literal application of the actual structure of Olkkonen gratings to the actual structure of the waveguide and diffraction in/out put couplings of Lee. However, that is not the proper standard for the analysis required under 35 USC 103(a). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Keller at 881, goes on to revisit the long history of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) regarding the nature of suggestion established by the combined teachings of the references rather than the actual results of a physical, bodily incorporation:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. In re Griver, 53 CCPA 815, 354, F.2d 377, 148 USPQ 197 (1966); In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d 689, 126 USPQ 370 (1960). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979); In re Passal, 57 CCPA 1151, 426 F.2d 828, 165 USPQ 720 (1970); In re Richman, 57 CCPA 1060, 424 F.2d 1388, 165 USPQ 509 (1970); In re Rosselet, 52 CCPA 1533, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (1965).
The structure taught in the combined teachings of the references, as set forth above, is a proper combination. Because the structure of the combined system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of the waveguide display having in- and out- coupling multiple diffractive elements. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the thickness characteristics of the waveguide were disclosed in the Lee prior art. The Olkkonen reference was not used or relied upon for disclosing or discussing issues regarding the waveguide thickness, but rather for teaching for the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element, (see e.g. Figs. 1A-B, 2C which are comparable to similar structure of Fig. 2 of instant application).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding alleged fundamental differences between cited prior art of Lee and Olkkonen due to additional optics in certain examples the third out-coupling element at least partly laterally overlapping each of the first out-coupling element and the second out-coupling element, it is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. increasing waveguide thickness to mitigate in-coupling losses, effects on the efficiency of its structure.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, regarding Applicants that there is no reason for the combination as neither Lee nor Olkkonen identifies in-coupling loss caused by multiple reflections at the in-coupling region as a problem, nor suggests increasing waveguide thickness as a solution, it is noted that
Examiner has provided reason to combine (see above). Applicant has merely alleged that no reason was provided or no reason exists, and has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified reason in the first action fails to meet the legal requirements of a reason to combine as set forth by KSR.
Lastly it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
Thus the cited prior art of Lee and Olkkonen discloses and renders obvious all limitations of claims 1 and 11 as well as limitations noted under issue (1) above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented in the Remarks dated 05/05/2026 after page 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Piper et al. US 20240036257 A1 also discloses importance of the above noted ration of width of the input coupler to the thickness of the waveguide in HUD optical devices (see e.g. Figs. 8-9 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights