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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 27, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 24 and has canceled claim 20.
Claims 1-19 and 21-24 remain pending in this application.
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 1-19 and 21-24 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been significantly amended to include “an incoupler to incouple display light… comprising an incoupler grating” and the phrase “an outcoupler to outcouple the display light… comprising an outcoupler grating” that are confusing and indefinite since there is not logical and structural relationships between the incoupler, the outcoupler and the sub-wavelength grating to make the system operable.
The scopes of the claims are unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 17-19, 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Wall et al (US 2017/0235142 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Soskind et al PN. 11,754,767).
Claims 1 and 17 have been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Wall et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 17, a display system that is comprised of an inputcoupler (112B, 112G or 112R, Figure 2) to incouple a display light from an image source (204) into the waveguide (100G, 100B or 100R) the incoupler comprising an incoupler grating (please see paragraph [0023]), having an incouler grating period and an outcoupler (116B, 116G or 116R) to outcouple the display light from the waveguide, the outcoupler comprising an outcoupler grating having an outcouple grating period.
Wall et al teaches that the waveguide has a waveguide surface.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Wall et al teaches that an anti-reflective coating may be provided at the waveguide surface (108, please see paragraph [0052]). This reference however does not teach to include a sub-wavelength grating disposed on the waveguide surface.
Soskind et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-reflective structure (please see Table 2 for near zero reflectivity) that is comprised of a transmission sub-wavelength grating (954, 956 or 958, Figure 13b) that serves as the rows of three dimensional primitive structures that has a height and period. Soskind et al teaches that the anti-reflective structure with the sub-wavelength grating has a period and height that are both less than wavelength of the incident light, in this case being visible light from the image source, incident on the waveguide surface, (please see Table 2).
Since Wall et al teaches that the incoupler grating and outcoupler grating are each a diffractive grating, then by definition they each have a grating period that is greater than the wavelength of incident light and which means the sub-wavelength grating has a period that is smaller than the incoupler grating period and outcoupler grating period.
It would then have been obvious to apply the teaching of Soskind et al to modify the display device of Wall et al to replace the anti-reflective coating with the anti-reflective sub-wavelength grating for the benefit of providing a highly efficient anti-reflective structure, (please see Table 2).
With regard to claim 17, Wall et al also teaches a method that includes the step of receiving the incoupler display light from the image source, step of outcoupling the display light by the outcoupler, receiving by the waveguide surface of the waveguide incident light and the step of mitigating reflection by anti-reflective coating. Wall et al teaches that the display system may be a near eye or head-mounted display (please see the abstract and paragraph [0002] and [0045]).
Soskind et al teaches the sub-wavelength grating comprises rows of three-dimensional primitive structures wherein a height of the 3D primitive structures is smaller than a wavelength of visible incident light at a surface of the sub-wavelength grating, (please see Table 2), may efficiently mitigates the reflection. It would then have been obvious to apply the teaching of Soskind et al to modify the display device of Wall et al to replace the anti-reflective coating with the anti-reflective sub-wavelength grating for the benefit of providing a highly efficient anti-reflective structure, (please see Table 2).
With regard to claims 2 and 18, Soskind et al teaches that each of the rows of 3D primitive structures comprises repeating patterns of the 3D primitive structures each of the repeating patterns of 3D primitive structures comprising a first 3D primitive structure (954), and a second 3D primitive structure (956) having at least one characteristic, (please see Table 2) that differs from the first 3D primitive structure.
With regard to claims 3 and 19, Soskind et al teaches that the different characteristics comprises a height, a period and width, (please see Table 2).
With regard to claims 5-6 and 21-22, Soskind et al teaches that the sub-wavelength gratings are transmission gratings that implicitly would impart a phase that constructively interference with light (such as blue, green or red light) that is transmitted through the sub-wavelength gratings, (please see column 11, lines 16-20). It is also implicitly true that light not transmitted by the sub-wavelength grating (such as red or green light for grating transmits blue light), would be destructively interfered with the phase imparted by the sub-wavelength grating.
With regard to claims 8 and 24, Soskind et al teaches that the sub-wavelength grating is comprised of at least one layer sub-wavelength grating.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al and Soskind et al as applied to claims 1 and 17 and further in view of the US patent application publication by Glik et al (US2018/0252857 A1).
The system taught by Wall et al in combine with the teachings of Soskind et al as described in claims 1 and 17 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended claim 4, these references do not teach an exit pupil expander to redirect the display light from the incoupler to the outcoupler wherein the exit pupil expander has an exit pupil expander grating.
Glik et al teaches a head mount display that is comprised of a transmission channel (320, Figures 3A) that serves as the exit pupil expander grating that redirect the display light from the incoupler to the outcoupler.
Since Soskind et al teaches that the sub-wavelength grating has period the is less than wavelength of the incident light, it has a period that is smaller than the exit pupil expander grating for the exit pupil expander grating is for diffracting the display light that requires to be greater than the wavelength.
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al and Soskind et al as applied to claims 1 and 17 and further in view of the US patent application publication by Vartiainen (US 2020/0166691 A1).
The system taught by Wall et al in combine with the teachings of Soskind et al as described in claims 1 and 17 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, Vartiainen teaches that the primitive structure may comprise sub-wavelength structure, (please see paragraph [0043]) that may have the 3D primitive structure includes triangular prism, (please see Figures 2A and 2B).
Claim(s) 9-16 and 17-19, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Wall et al (US 2017/0235142A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Glik et al (US 2018/0252857 A1) and the patent issued to Soskind et al (PN. 11,754,767).
Claim 9 has been significantly amended that necessitate the new ground rejection.
Wall et al teaches, with regard to claims 9 and 17, a head-mounted display system (please see Figure 2 and paragraph [0002], [0045])) to couple light from an image source. Wall et al teaches that the display system that is comprised of an inputcoupler (112B, 112G or 112R, Figure 2) to incouple a display light from an image source (204) into the waveguide (100G, 100B or 100R) the incoupler comprising an incoupler grating (please see paragraph [0023]), having an incouler grating period and an outcoupler (116B, 116G or 116R) to outcouple the display light from the waveguide, the outcoupler comprising an outcoupler grating having an outcouple grating period. Wall et al teaches that the waveguide has a waveguide surface.
Wall et al teaches that the display system is a head mount display system that includes the waveguide. It is implicitly true that the waveguide serves as a lens element. It however does not teach explicitly to include support structure. Glik et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a head mount display that explicitly has a support structure for supporting the waveguide/ lens structure, (please see Figures 2A and 2B). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Glik et al to modify the head mount display system of Wall et al to include support structure.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Wall et al further teaches to include an anti-reflective coating be provided at the waveguide surface (108, please see paragraph [0052]). This reference however does not teach to include a sub-wavelength grating disposed on the waveguide surface.
Soskind et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-reflective structure (please see Table 2 for near zero reflectivity) that is comprised of a transmission sub-wavelength grating (954, 956 or 958, Figure 13b) that serves as the rows of three dimensional primitive structures that has a height and period. Soskind et al teaches that the anti-reflective structure with the sub-wavelength grating has a period and height that are both less than wavelength of the incident light, in this case being visible light from the image source, incident on the waveguide surface, (please see Table 2).
Since Wall et al teaches that the incoupler grating and outcoupler grating are each a diffractive grating, then by definition they each have a grating period that is greater than the wavelength of incident light and which means the sub-wavelength grating has a period that is smaller than the incoupler grating period and outcoupler grating period.
It would then have been obvious to apply the teaching of Soskind et al to modify the display device of Wall et al to replace the anti-reflective coating with the anti-reflective sub-wavelength grating for the benefit of providing a highly efficient anti-reflective structure, (please see Table 2).
With regard to claim 17, Wall et al, Glik et al and Soskind also teach a method that includes the step of receiving by the waveguide surface of the waveguide incident light and the step of mitigating reflection by sub-wavelength grating of the incident light from the waveguide surface of the waveguide. Soskind et al further teaches the sub-wavelength grating comprises rows of three-dimensional primitive structures wherein a height of the 3D primitive structures is smaller than a wavelength of visible incident light at a surface of the sub-wavelength grating, (please see Table 2).
With regard to claims 10-11 and 18-19, Glik et al teaches that the incident light includes different wavelengths which means that the incoupling sub-wavelength grating (960) is capable of diffracting and transmitting light of different wavelengths (or colors, please see paragraph [0085]). This implicitly means and in light of Soskind et al the sub-wavelength grating (960) must comprise different 3D primitive structures for diffracting and transmitting the different wavelength of light, the differences in the different 3D primitive structures include different period and height, with regard to claim 11, (please see Table 2).
With regard to amended claim 12, Glik et al teaches a head mount display that is comprised of a transmission channel (320, Figures 3A) that serves as the exit pupil expander grating that redirect the display light from the incoupler to the outcoupler.
Since Soskind et al teaches that the sub-wavelength grating has period the is less than wavelength of the incident light, it has a period that is smaller than the exit pupil expander grating for the exit pupil expander grating is for diffracting the display light that requires to be greater than the wavelength.
With regard to claims 13-14 and 21-22, Glik et al in light of Soskind et al teaches that the sub-wavelength gratings are transmission gratings that implicitly would impart a phase that constructively interference with light (such as blue, green or red light) that is transmitted through the sub-wavelength gratings, (please see column 11, lines 16-20). It is also implicitly true that light not transmitted by the sub-wavelength grating (such as red or green light for grating transmits blue light), would be destructively interfered with the phase imparted by the sub-wavelength grating.
With regard to claims 15 and 23, Glik et al teaches that the 3D primitive structures include a cube, (please see Figure 9B).
With regard to claims 16 and 24, Glik et al teaches that the sub-wavelength grating is comprised of at least one layer sub-wavelength grating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872