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 .
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 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.
Unity of Invention
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no burden exists. This is not found persuasive because burden is not a relevant inquiry in 35 U.S.C 371 National Stage applications. Note C.F.R. 1.475(a):
“Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features.”
The requirement is still deemed proper for the reasons set forth in the 1/23/2026 Requirement for Unity of Invention, and is therefore made FINAL.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 4-8, 11-14, and 18-22 stand amended. Claims 8-14 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez ‘090 (US 20170357090 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Martinez ‘090 discloses a method of expanding a field of view (FOV) of a wearable display device, comprising:
converting display light emitted from a micro-display (508) of the wearable display device to polarized light having a first polarization or a second polarization (by polarizer 512, ¶43-45, “s” and “p” polarization);
transmitting the polarized light into a waveguide of the wearable display device (Fig. 5A);
directing a portion of the polarized light out of the waveguide by at least one outcoupler (504) of a first subset of a plurality of outcouplers (Fig. 5A, “s” or “p”), the first subset of outcouplers being configured to reflect light having the first polarization (¶43-45); and
directing a remaining portion of the polarized light out of the waveguide by at least one outcoupler of a second subset of the plurality of outcouplers (Fig. 5A, “p” or “s”), the second subset of outcouplers being configured to reflect light having the second polarization (¶43-45).
Regarding claim 18, Martinez ‘090 discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the waveguide comprises an eye-facing surface, wherein the method comprises disposing each outcoupler of the first subset of outcouplers at a first angle with the eye-facing surface, and wherein the method further comprises disposing each outcoupler of the second subset of outcouplers at a second angle with the eye-facing surface (Fig. 2B, different reflective surfaces s1, s2, and s3 point in different directions r1, r2, and r3 and thus subtend different angles).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the method of claim 15, and further discloses further comprising positioning each outcoupler of the first subset of outcouplers adjacent to another outcoupler of the first set of outcouplers within the waveguide (Figs. 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the method of claim 15, and further discloses further comprising arranging the outcouplers of the first subset of outcouplers and the outcouplers of the second subset of outcouplers in a staggered configuration in which at least one outcoupler of the first subset of outcouplers is disposed between two outcouplers of the second subset of outcouplers within the waveguide (Figs. 5A, 5B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez ‘090 in view of Martinez ‘143 (US 20170293143 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Martinez ‘090 discloses a wearable display device (Fig. 5A), comprising:
a micro-display (508) configured to project display light (sequitur);
a polarizer (512) configured to receive the display light and selectively convert the display light to one of s-polarized display light or p-polarized display light (¶44);
an outcoupler region (504) of the waveguide comprising a first set of outcouplers (“p”) and a second set of outcouplers (“s”), the first set of outcouplers configured to reflect s-polarized light and the second set of outcouplers configured to reflect p-polarized light (¶43-44, e.g. “In the illustrated embodiment two of the four reflective polarizing surfaces are p-polarizing, the other two are s-polarizing.”).
Martinez ‘090 does not explicitly show an incoupling prism configured to receive the polarized display light and transmit the polarized display light into a waveguide.
Martinez ‘143, drawn to wearable displays, explicitly shows an incoupling prism (115) configured to receive the polarized display light and transmit the polarized display light into a waveguide (Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶17-18, discussing display species including liquid crystal vis-à-vis polarized light displays, and inclusion of polarization rotator 110 therefore).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the incoupling prism of Martinez ‘143 to provide the display light to the waveguide of Martinez ‘090 since the prism advantageously pre-compensate chromatic aberration (see Martinez ‘090, ¶19).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, and Martinez ‘090 further discloses wherein the waveguide comprises an eye-facing surface, wherein each outcoupler of the first set of outcouplers is disposed at a first angle with the eye-facing surface, and wherein each outcoupler of the second set of outcouplers is disposed at a second angle with the eye- facing surface (Fig. 2B, different reflective surfaces s1, s2, and s3 point in different directions r1, r2, and r3 and thus subtend different angles).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, and Martinez ‘090 further discloses wherein each outcoupler of the first set of outcouplers is positioned adjacent to another outcoupler of the first set of outcouplers (Fig. 5A, the areas “p” and “s” are adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, and Martinez ‘090 further discloses wherein the outcouplers of the first set of outcouplers and the outcouplers of the second set of outcouplers are arranged in a staggered configuration in which at least one outcoupler of the first set of outcouplers is positioned between two outcouplers of the second set of outcouplers (Fig. 5A, the areas “p” and “s” are adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, and Martinez ‘143 further discloses wherein the polarizer comprises a half-wave plate (¶18, half wave plate optically coupled with the display).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the polarizer is configured to selectively convert the display light to one of circularly s-polarized display light or circularly p-polarized display light (see Martinez ‘090, ¶42, selective s and p polarization conversion, and Martinez ‘143, ¶30, use of quarter wave polarization rotator to generate circular polarized display light).
Regarding claim 21, Martinez ‘090 teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly show wherein transmitting the polarized light into a waveguide of the wearable display device includes transmitting the polarized light via an incoupling prism configured to direct the polarized light towards the plurality of outcouplers within the waveguide.
Martinez ‘143, drawn to wearable displays, explicitly shows an incoupling prism (115) configured to receive the polarized display light and transmit the polarized display light into a waveguide (Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶17-18, discussing display species including liquid crystal vis-à-vis polarized light displays, and inclusion of polarization rotator 110 therefore).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the incoupling prism of Martinez ‘143 to provide the display light to the waveguide of Martinez ‘090 since the prism advantageously pre-compensate chromatic aberration (see Martinez ‘090, ¶19).
Regarding claim 22, Martinez ‘090 teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly show wherein converting the display light emitted from the micro-display to the polarized light having the first polarization or the second polarization includes converting linearly polarized display light emitted from the micro-display to circularly polarized display light having the first polarization or the second polarization.
Martinez ‘143, drawn to head mounted displays similarly to Martinez ‘090, explicitly shows converting the display light emitted from the micro-display (105) to the polarized light having the first polarization or the second polarization includes converting linearly polarized display light emitted from the micro-display to circularly polarized display light having the first polarization or the second polarization (by polarization rotator 110, per ¶30 a quarter wave plate for producing circularly polarized display light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Martinez ‘143 to produce circularly polarized light in the method of Martinez ‘090 for the purpose of improving reflection efficiency of the outcoupling element (see Martinez ‘143, ¶30).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Martinez ‘090 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (US 20220365482 A1) and Pfeiffer (US 20200117003 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, the modified Martinez ‘090 teaches the wearable display device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first set and second set of outcouplers comprise one or more holographic mirrors.
Yu, drawn to head mounted displays, explicitly shows wherein the first set and second set of outcouplers comprise one or more holographic mirrors (¶188, Fig. 22A, showing the waveguide with outcoupler 2350, noting the type of the outcoupler is a reflective achromatic metasurface and polarization volume hologram [PVH] stack as discussed in ¶184, Fig. 21B; in other words, the holographic reflection is rendered achromatic by additional structure). Pfeiffer, drawn to head mounted displays, also discloses holographic mirrors (e.g. Fig. 7 having holographic mirrors 708, 710, 712, see ¶4 where the holographic optical elements itself is substantially achromatic, see ¶73-74, “In other words, the varying grating directions in set 706 may collapse diffracted beams 738 and 740 into the direction of beam 736, as shown by arrows 742. This may reduce chromatic effects by directing light of each color to a desired location (e.g., an eye box).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the holographic mirrors of Yu and/or Pfeiffer to improve the polarization sensitive outcoupling of the modified Martinez ‘090 using achromatic holograms thus increasing optical performance (see Yu, ¶70, “As such, the PVH and the metasurface, in combination, may achieve the desired high diffraction efficiency, large diffraction angle, and low chromatic aberration.”, and of course the well known benefit of minimizing chromatic aberration thus improving quality of full color display).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez ‘090 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yu and Pfeiffer.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Martinez ‘090 discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly show wherein the first set and second set of outcouplers comprise one or more holographic mirrors.
Yu, drawn to head mounted displays, explicitly shows wherein the first set and second set of outcouplers comprise one or more holographic mirrors (¶188, Fig. 22A, showing the waveguide with outcoupler 2350, noting the type of the outcoupler is a reflective achromatic metasurface and polarization volume hologram [PVH] stack as discussed in ¶184, Fig. 21B; in other words, the holographic reflection is rendered achromatic by additional structure). Pfeiffer, drawn to head mounted displays, also discloses holographic mirrors (e.g. Fig. 7 having holographic mirrors 708, 710, 712, see ¶4 where the holographic optical elements itself is substantially achromatic, see ¶73-74, “In other words, the varying grating directions in set 706 may collapse diffracted beams 738 and 740 into the direction of beam 736, as shown by arrows 742. This may reduce chromatic effects by directing light of each color to a desired location (e.g., an eye box).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the holographic mirrors of Yu and/or Pfeiffer to improve the polarization sensitive outcoupling of the modified Martinez ‘090 using achromatic holograms thus increasing optical performance (see Yu, ¶70, “As such, the PVH and the metasurface, in combination, may achieve the desired high diffraction efficiency, large diffraction angle, and low chromatic aberration.”, and of course the well known benefit of minimizing chromatic aberration thus improving quality of full color display).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights