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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2/27/2024 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Inventorship
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stratton et al. in US 20240069336 A1 (hereinafter "Stratton").
Regarding claim 1, Stratton discloses a waveguide (see Fig. 2-3; see Para. 25 and 30) comprising:
a volume of optically transparent material (necessary property of waveguides; they must be optically transparent to some wavelengths; volume is a necessary property of real objects); and
a diffraction grating carried by the volume of optically transparent material (Fig. 3 shows a cross-section where a diffraction grating is supported by, and thus interpreted as carried by, the volume of optically transparent material), wherein the diffraction grating comprises:
one or more diffraction features comprising one or more apodization features (Fig. 2 shows the diffraction grating 210 has grooveless regions 206 and 208 which change towards the edges of 210 and thus is interpreted as an apodization feature); and
one or more grooves adjacent to the one or more diffraction feature (206 and 208 are adjacent to grooves 202 and 204; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more diffraction features comprises at least one portion separated by one or more sub-wavelength features (one or more diffraction features comprises at least one portion separated by one or more sub-wavelength features since Para. 29 discloses a 350 nm diffraction period which is below the visible wavelengths of light used in the device).
Regarding claim 3, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features are implemented by varying a ratio of a filled region of a diffraction ratio to a total period (see Fig. 4 where the duty cycle may be varied as a ratio of a filled region of a diffraction ratio to a total period; see Para. 33, “ON” is interpreted as the filled region, “OFF” is interpreted as an unfilled region).
Regarding claim 4, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features are implemented at a portion of one or more edges of the one or more diffraction features (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features includes one or more sub-wavelength features disposed at the one or more diffraction features (one or more apodization features includes one or more sub-wavelength features disposed at the one or more diffraction features since Para. 29 discloses a 350 nm diffraction period which is below the visible wavelengths of light used in the device).
Regarding claim 7, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features are implemented by varying a ratio of a grating line width of the one or more diffraction features to a grating pitch between successive diffraction features of the one or more diffraction features (the duty cycle is a measure of how much of a period, or pitch, is groove and how much is ridge, i.e., grating line width; Stratton teaches varying duty cycle over the surface of the grating; see Para. 25-30).
Regarding claim 8, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 7 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features includes a first grating bar and a second grating bar, the first grating bar is adjacent to the second grating bar, the first grating bar has a first grating line width greater in size than a second grating line width of the second grating bar (see Fig. 2A where grating bars such as 206 and 208 are adjacent; each grating bar is different from one directly adjacent and thus one is necessarily larger than the other; these increase in size from right to left as viewed in Fig. 2A while groove size decreases).
Regarding claim 9, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 7 as discussed above, wherein the one or more apodization features includes a first grating bar and a second grating bar, the first grating bar is adjacent to the second grating bar, the grating pitch increases between the successive diffraction features of the one or more diffraction features (annotated Fig. 2B shows the grating pitch increasing between two successive diffraction features).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Stratton discloses a set of augmented reality glasses implementing the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above (see Para. 35 and see Fig. 1).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton et al. in US 20240069336 A1 (hereinafter "Stratton") in view of Saarikko et al. in US 20160231568 A1 (hereinafter "Saarikko") and as evidenced by Kuo in US 20220381991 A1 (hereinafter "Kuo").
Regarding claim 5, Stratton discloses the waveguide of claim 4 as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the one or more apodization features are implemented by varying a height of the one or more diffraction features.
Saarikko teaches a similar device wherein the one or more apodization features are implemented by varying a height of the one or more diffraction features (see Fig. 11A and Para. 130).
Kuo provides evidence that apodization may be accomplished with width or height variance (see Fig. 3; see Para. 8 and 28) thus both are known structures for accomplishing apodization.
Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute height variance for width variance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights