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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the infrared illumination layer has a variable thickness” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 8 and 10 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 8. Claim 8 recites in part: “a high index coating.” The term “a high index coating” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a high index coating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes any refractive index will meet this limitation.
Regarding Claim 10. Claim recites the limitation " the infrared illumination layer " in. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as the illumination layer.
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, 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200333615 A1 to Blomstedt et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Blomstedt discloses a display comprising: a waveguide having a first face and a second face (Fig. 1A waveguide 10), the first face disposed opposite the second face with respect to the waveguide (See Fig. 1A); an in-coupling grating disposed on the first face (Fig. 1A in-coupling grating 31), the in-coupling grating configured to couple light into the waveguide to propagate internally reflected light in a first direction (As shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 3); and a plurality of out-coupling gratings disposed on at least one of the first face and the second face (Fig. 1A), the plurality of out-coupling gratings configured to receive the internally reflected light and to couple the internally reflected light out of the waveguide (as shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 2. Blomstedt further discloses a spreader disposed on at least one of the first face and the second face of the waveguide (Fig. 3 exit pupil expander (EPE) grating 32), the spreader configured to propagate the internally reflected light in the first direction and to further propagate the internally reflected light in a second, different direction (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9. Blomstedt further discloses the waveguide corresponds to an illumination layer (See Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 14. Blomstedt further discloses a visible light waveguide, the visible light waveguide configured to present digital content (See Fig. 1A and para 27).
Regarding Claim 15. Blomstedt further discloses the internally reflected light coupled out of the waveguide comprises out-coupled light (See Fig. 1A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstedt as applied to claim 2 in view of US 20180210205 A1 to Grey.
Regarding Claim 3. As stated above, Blomstedt discloses all the limitations of base claim 2.
Blomstedt does not specifically disclose at least one nano-pattern selected from lines, meta-grating, holes, and pillars.
However, Grey discloses an optical expander wherein at least one nano-pattern selected from lines, meta-grating, holes, and pillars (See at least Fig. 4) as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that at least one nano-pattern selected from lines, meta-grating, holes, and pillars.
Claims 5-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstedt as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190056591 A1 to Tervo et al.
Regarding Claim 5. As stated above, Blomstedt discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Blomstedt does not specifically disclose a width of each out-coupling grating of the plurality of out-coupling gratings is approximately equal to a width of the in-coupling grating.
However, Tervo discloses parameters associated with a grating structure may include, but are not limited to, grating period, grating line width, grating fill factor, grating depth, slant angle, line shape, surface pattern, and modulation direction to achieve a desired purpose or function is well understood in the art. (See para 37). The width of each out-coupling grating and the width of the in-coupling grating are result-effective variables. In that, it is well understood in the art to optimize to achieve a desired purpose or function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that a width of each out-coupling grating of the plurality of out-coupling gratings is approximately equal to a width of the in-coupling grating. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 6. Tervo further discloses the plurality of out-coupling gratings comprises at least one nano-pattern selected from lines, meta-grating, holes, pillars, saw-tooth, slanted, and multi-tier (See at least Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7. Tervo further discloses the in-coupling grating comprises at least one nano-pattern selected from lines, meta-grating, holes, pillars, saw-tooth, slanted, and multi-tier (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8. Tervo further discloses a high index coating disposed on at least one of a surface of the in-coupling grating and a surface of an out-coupling grating of the plurality of out-coupling gratings (Fig. 4B coating 405a, para 42 to improve diffraction efficiency).
Regarding Claim 17. Tervo further discloses the plurality of out-coupling gratings comprises at least one of a surface relief grating, a liquid crystal grating, and a volume phase grating.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstedt as applied to claim 9 in view of US 20190056591 A1 to Tervo et al.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above, Blomstedt discloses all the limitations of base claim 9.
Blomstedt does not specifically disclose the infrared illumination layer has a variable thickness.
However, Tervo discloses a waveguide with variable thickness (See at least Fig. 3). as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the infrared illumination layer has a variable thickness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstedt as applied to claim 1 in view of US 10962787 B1 to Lou et al.
Regarding Claim 13. As stated above, Blomstedt discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Blomstedt further discloses a first out-coupling grating of the plurality of out-coupling gratings is disposed a first distance away from the in-coupling grating (as shown in Fig. 1A), a second out-coupling grating of the plurality of out-coupling gratings is disposed a second distance away from the in-coupling grating (as shown in Fig. 1A), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (See Fig. 1A)
Blomstedt does not specifically disclose the first out-coupling grating exhibits a first diffraction efficiency and the second out-coupling grating exhibits a second diffraction efficiency greater than the first efficiency.
However, Lou discloses a waveguide with variable tooth height (See at least Fig. 7A) where the diffraction efficiency of the depth-modulated slanted tooth surface relief grating significantly increases as the grating depth increases (See Col 10 lines 23-25). as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the first out-coupling grating exhibits a first diffraction efficiency and the second out-coupling grating exhibits a second diffraction efficiency greater than the first efficiency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstedt as applied to claim 15 in view of US 20210041692 A1 to Zhang et al.
Regarding Claim 16. As stated above, Blomstedt discloses all the limitations of base claim 15.
Blomstedt does not specifically disclose a light sensor, the light sensor configured to detect at least a portion of the out-coupled light that is reflected off an eye of a user.
However, Zhang discloses a light sensor, the light sensor configured to detect at least a portion of the out-coupled light that is reflected off an eye of a user (See at least Fig. 2, Fig. 7 and para 25). as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a light sensor, the light sensor configured to detect at least a portion of the out-coupled light that is reflected off an eye of a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871