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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tekolste (US 20190094536 A1).
Re Claim 1, Tekolste discloses, on Fig. 8, an apparatus comprising [Par 7]: a waveguide (substrate 802 is a waveguide) having an in-coupler (incoupling optics 808) [Par 101], an out-coupler (exit pupil expander, EPE, 806) [Par 101-104], and at least one exit pupil expander (EPE 806) along an optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler [Par 101-104] ; and a holographic optical element (OPE 804) on at least a portion of a surface of the waveguide opposite the exit pupil expander (See Fig. 8 where 806 is opposite 804 on substrate 802); wherein the holographic optical element is configured as at least one of a wavelength-selective mirror or an angle-selective mirror (“The volumetric-phase type diffractive elements may be wavelength selective and behavior like a dichroic mirror. In some other embodiments, at least a first portion of the OPE diffractive elements or the EPE diffractive elements may be of the surface-relief type diffractive elements, and at least another portion of the OPE diffractive elements or the EPE diffractive elements may be of the volumetric-phase type diffractive elements.”) [Par 98].
Re Claim 2, Tekolste discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Tekolste further discloses on Fig. 2b and 8, wherein the apparatus further comprises an image generator (input light beam from a source scanner or projector) [Par 102], the in-coupler being configured to in-couple an image generated by the image generator (Fig. 8: incoupling optics 808 receive light beams from projector) [Par 102], and wherein the holographic optical element (OPE 804) is configured as a wavelength-selective mirror (Fig. 8: “A portion of this remaining portion of the input light beams 810 is thus deflected by the EPE diffractive elements 806 and becomes the existing light beams 814 to the user's eye(s) (not shown), and the remaining portion of the input light beams 810 further continues to propagate as light beams 818 within the substrate 802.”) [Par 103], a reflectance of the wavelength-selective mirror having at least one peak at a wavelength of light emitted by the image generator (EPE and OPE are volumetric phase diffractive elements, which are wavelength selective, and Fig. 2A-2B shows schematic representations of similar volumetric phase diffractive elements that have peak wavelengths) [Par 71-72 and 98].
Re Claim 8, Tekolste discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Tekolste further discloses, on Fig. 8, wherein the exit pupil expander (EPE, orthogonal pupil expander, 806) comprises a diffraction grating (EPE is a diffraction grating) [Par 007].
Re Claim 9, Tekolste discloses, on Fig. 8, a method comprising: coupling light into an in-coupler (incoupling optics 808) [Par 101] of a waveguide (substrate 802 is a waveguide) [Par 101] having an out-coupler (exit pupil expander, EPE, 806) [Par 101-104] and at least one exit pupil expander (EPE 806) along an optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler; using a holographic optical element (OPE 804) on at least a portion of a surface of the waveguide opposite the exit pupil expander (See Fig. 8 where 806 is opposite 804 on substrate 802), selectively reflecting or transmitting the light based on at least one of a wavelength of the light or an angle of the light (“The volumetric-phase type diffractive elements may be wavelength selective and behavior like a dichroic mirror. In some other embodiments, at least a first portion of the OPE diffractive elements or the EPE diffractive elements may be of the surface-relief type diffractive elements, and at least another portion of the OPE diffractive elements or the EPE diffractive elements may be of the volumetric-phase type diffractive elements.”) [Par 98].
Re Claim 10, Tekolste discloses, the method of claim 9, and Tekolste further discloses on Fig. 2b and 8, wherein further comprising emitting light from an image generator (input light beam from a source scanner or projector) [Par 102], the in-coupler being configured to in-couple an image generated by the image generator (Fig. 8: incoupling optics 808 receive light beams from projector) [Par 102], and wherein the holographic optical element (OPE 804) is configured as a wavelength-selective mirror (Fig. 8: “A portion of this remaining portion of the input light beams 810 is thus deflected by the EPE diffractive elements 806 and becomes the existing light beams 814 to the user's eye(s) (not shown), and the remaining portion of the input light beams 810 further continues to propagate as light beams 818 within the substrate 802.”) [Par 103], a reflectance of the wavelength-selective mirror having at least one peak at a wavelength of light emitted by the image generator (EPE and OPE are volumetric phase diffractive elements, which are wavelength selective, and Fig. 2A-2B shows schematic representations of similar volumetric phase diffractive elements that have peak wavelengths) [Par 71-72 and 98].
Re Claim 15, Tekolste discloses, the method of claim 9, and Tekolste further discloses, comprising permitting ambient light to enter the waveguide, wherein the holographic optical element selectively transmits at least a portion of the ambient light (“Volumetric phase structures may be more angularly selective than surface relief structures, and thus may not as readily diffract light from external, possibly ambient sources.”, partial angularly selective ambient light ) [Par 67].
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, 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(s) 3-4, 6-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste in view of Chi (US 20210055551 A1).
Re Claim 3, Tekolste discloses, the apparatus of claim 1.
But Tekolste does not explicitly, wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror, the angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that increases for increasing angle of incidence.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] the angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that increases for increasing angle of incidence (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.) [Par 167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 4, Tekolste discloses, the apparatus of claim 3.
But Tekolste does not explicitly disclose, wherein the angle-selective mirror is configured to substantially transmit light having an incident angle less than a threshold angle and to substantially reflect light having an incident angle greater than a threshold angle.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] that is configured to substantially transmit light having an incident angle less than a threshold angle and to substantially reflect light having an incident angle greater than a threshold angle (“In some embodiments, the waveguide display may include an angular-selective transmissive layer configured to reflect, diffract, or absorb ambient light incident on the angular-selective transmissive layer with an incidence angle greater than a threshold value.”) [Par 008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 6, Tekolste discloses, the apparatus of claim 1.
But Tekolste does not explicitly disclose, wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that depends on an azimuth angle of incident light.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] having a reflectance that depends on an azimuth angle of incident light (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.”, azimuth angle of incident light would inherently be a component of the overall incident angle) [Par 167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 7, Tekolste in view Chi discloses, the apparatus of claim 6, and Chi further discloses on Fig. 27, wherein the angle-selective mirror has a maximum reflectance for light with an azimuth angle directed along an optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.”, azimuth angle of incident light would inherently be a component of the overall incident angle, thus the maximum reflectance would be at an angle greater than the see through field of view) [Par 167].
Re Claim 11, Tekolste discloses, the method of claim 9.
But Tekolste does not explicitly, wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror, the angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that increases for increasing angle of incidence.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] the angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that increases for increasing angle of incidence (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.) [Par 167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 12, Tekolste discloses, the method of claim 11.
But Tekolste does not explicitly disclose, wherein the angle-selective mirror is configured to substantially transmit light having an incident angle less than a threshold angle and to substantially reflect light having an incident angle greater than a threshold angle.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] that is configured to substantially transmit light having an incident angle less than a threshold angle and to substantially reflect light having an incident angle greater than a threshold angle (“In some embodiments, the waveguide display may include an angular-selective transmissive layer configured to reflect, diffract, or absorb ambient light incident on the angular-selective transmissive layer with an incidence angle greater than a threshold value.”) [Par 008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 13, Tekolste discloses, the method of claim 9.
But Tekolste does not explicitly disclose, wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror having a reflectance that depends on an azimuth angle of incident light.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chi teaches on Fig. 27, that it is desirable in waveguides to include wherein the holographic optical element is configured as an angle-selective mirror (angular selective transmissive layer 2740) [Par 167] having a reflectance that depends on an azimuth angle of incident light (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.”, azimuth angle of incident light would inherently be a component of the overall incident angle) [Par 167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste with Chi in order to provide high efficiency and low loss, as taught by Chi [Par 167].
Re Claim 14, Tekolste in view Chi discloses, the method of claim 13, and Chi further discloses on Fig. 27, wherein the angle-selective mirror has a maximum reflectance for light with an azimuth angle directed along an optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (“…incident light 2760 with an incident angle greater than the see-through field of view may be mostly reflected, diffracted, or absorbed by angular-selective transmissive layer 2740, and thus may not reach waveguide 2710. External light 2730 with an incident angle within the see-through field of view may mostly pass through angular-selective transmissive layer and waveguide 2710, and may be refracted or diffracted by grating coupler 2720.”, azimuth angle of incident light would inherently be a component of the overall incident angle, thus the maximum reflectance would be at an angle greater than the see through field of view) [Par 167].
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste in view of Chi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Trulson (US 20170059841 A1).
Re Claim 5, Tekolste in view of Chi discloses, the apparatus of claim 4.
But Tekolste in view of Chi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the threshold angle is 35 degrees.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Trulson teaches, on Fig. 2B-C, that it is desirable in beam splitters, for the threshold angle to be 35 degrees (Trulson on Fig. 2B-2C teaches shifts in a dichroic beam splitters passband at an incident angle of 35 degrees and 55 degrees respectively for various light sources, which thus teaches the transmission and reflection of various wavelength bands at 35 degrees and 55 degrees which is above 35 degrees) [Par 67
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tekolste in view of Chi with Trulson in order to control stray light, as taught by Trulson [Par 68].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shimizu (US 9529323 B2) teaches a head mounted display comprising a waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights