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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “the second optical element comprises a first area and a second area; a plurality of first microstructures are formed on the first area; a plurality of second microstructures are formed on the second area” and “wherein the first microstructures and the second microstructures are different” and “the lens is a convex lens or a concave lens” 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.
Examiner’s Comments
In regards to optical elements having “microstructures” – applicant does not prove a definition for a “microstructure.” However, paragraph [0052] discloses a sole example that a microstructure may be “columnar periodic structures, and the pitches between the microstructures may be close to the wavelength of visible light (400nm to 700nm)” (a.k.a. a metalens). And paragraph [0053] notes the height of a microstructure may be “less than 100μm” and “less than 1μm”. Thus, in light of the specification an optical elements having “microstructures” is interpreted to include, but is not limited to: metalenses, gratings, subwavelength gratings and Fresnel lenses in the diffractive regime. This interpretation is reasonable and well within the grasp of the ordinarily skilled and consistent the broadest reasonable interpretation as is required be the MPEP §2111.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it lacks any inventive content. The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. In the instant application the examiner respectfully suggests including details the use of moving metalenses at the incoupling and outcoupling portions of the displays waveguide to adjust the light path. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A Near-to-Eye Waveguide Display with Movable Incoupling and Outcoupling Optical Elements with a Plurality of Microstructures”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for perforTseng a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for perforTseng the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for perforTseng the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a light path adjusting assembly … used for adjusting a path of the light” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as perforTseng the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939.
Regarding claim 1 Bradski discloses an optical system (title e.g. figure 13H), comprising: an image source assembly used for providing light (inherent that the display in 13H has a light source); a light-guiding element used for transmitting the light (e.g. waveguide 370); and a light path adjusting assembly disposed between the image source assembly and the light-guiding element and used for adjusting a path of the light (e.g. combination of multicore fiber 362 scanned by a piezoelectric actuator 368).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939.
Regarding claim 2 Bradski figure 13H discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Bradski figure 13H does not disclose it is further comprising: a first optical element disposed on the light-guiding element; a second optical element disposed on the light-guiding element; and a driving assembly used for driving the second optical element to move relative to the light-guiding element.
Bradski figure 7A teaches a similar optical system including a light-guiding element (e.g. waveguide 164) and an image source (e.g. display 160); and further teaches a first optical element disposed on the light-guiding element (e.g. world side variable focus lens element 166); a second optical element disposed on the light-guiding element (e.g. eye side variable focus lens element 166); and a driving assembly used for driving the second optical element to move relative to the light-guiding element (paragraph [0064] “(166) may be … a conventional refractive lens with moving elements”) for the purpose of incorporating variable focus (paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system as disclosed by Bradski figure 13H to have a first optical element disposed on the light-guiding element; a second optical element disposed on the light-guiding element; and a driving assembly used for driving the second optical element to move relative to the light-guiding element as taught by Bradski figure 7A for the purpose of incorporating variable focus.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939 in view of Tseng et al. “Metalenses: Advances and Applications” Adv. Optical Mater. 2018, 6, 1800554.
Regarding claims 3-4 Bradski figure 13H discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, as set forth above. Bradski does not disclose or teach the second optical element comprises a first area and a second area; a plurality of first microstructures are formed on the first area; a plurality of second microstructures are formed on the second area, as required by claim 3; or wherein the first microstructures and the second microstructures are different, as required by claim 4.
Tseng teaches substituting metalenses for conventional lenses (abstract) in virtual reality headsets (last paragraph first sentence) where the metalens includes a first area and a second area; a plurality of first microstructures are formed on the first area; a plurality of second microstructures are formed on the second area, wherein the first microstructures and the second microstructures are different (e.g. see figure 1(e)) for the purpose of using truly flat and compact optical element with superior performance (abstract). Further, this would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain improved predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system as disclosed by Bradski to substitute the conventional lens with a metalens including a first area and a second area; a plurality of first microstructures are formed on the first area; a plurality of second microstructures are formed on the second area, wherein the first microstructures and the second microstructures are different as taught by Tseng for the purpose of using truly flat and compact optical element with superior performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939 in view of Tseng et al. “Metalenses: Advances and Applications” Adv. Optical Mater. 2018, 6, 1800554, and in further view of Smith et al. US Patent 11,665,550 with evidence of certain facts provided by Hiemstra et al. “Performance Tradeoffs Posed by Moving Magnet Actuators in Flexure-Based Nanopositioning” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics ( Volume: 19, Issue: 1, February 2014).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Bradski and Tseng discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 4 including a driving assembly used for driving the second optical element to move relative to the light-guiding element, as set forth above. Bradski and Tseng do not disclose and teach said driving assembly comprises a first holder, a first movable portion, a first driving coil, and a first magnetic element, wherein: the second optical element is disposed on the first holder; the first holder is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element and the first driving coil are used for driving the first movable portion to move relative to the first driving coil.
Smith teaches a similar optical system (title e.g. figure 31 augmented-reality system 3100) including a movable optical element (inter alia abstract “a first lens that is movably coupled”); and further teaches driving assembly comprises a first holder, a first movable portion, a first driving coil, and a first magnetic element, wherein: the second optical element is disposed on the first holder (inter alia column 17 lines 60-64 “the first lens may be moved by actuating a voice coil actuator that is coupled between the first lens (e.g., via a mounting bracket) and the frame”); the first holder is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element and the first driving coil are used for driving the first movable portion to move relative to the first driving coil (inter alia column 26 lines 19-22 & 65-68 “a voice coil actuator mounted to the frame and configured to move the first lens along the first optical axis”) for the purpose of using a linear actuators that provide frictionless and backlash-free motion (as evidenced by Hiemstra inter alia abstract). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system including a driving assembly as disclosed by the combination of Bradski and Tseng to have said driving assembly comprises a first holder, a first movable portion, a first driving coil, and a first magnetic element, wherein: the second optical element is disposed on the first holder; the first holder is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element is disposed on the first movable portion; the first magnetic element and the first driving coil are used for driving the first movable portion to move relative to the first driving coil as taught by Smith for the purpose of using a linear actuators that provide frictionless and backlash-free motion as evidenced by Hiemstra.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939 in view of Tseng et al. “Metalenses: Advances and Applications” Adv. Optical Mater. 2018, 6, 1800554 and Smith et al. US Patent 11,665,550 in further view of Itsumi et al. US Patent 5,101,278.
Regarding claims 6-7 the combination of Bradski, Tseng and Smith discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 5, as set forth above. Bradski, Tseng and Smith do not disclose or teach wherein the driving assembly further comprises a first track, a second track, and a first connecting portion; wherein: the first movable portion is movably disposed on the first track; the first connecting portion connects to the first holder; the first connecting portion is movably disposed on the second track, as required by claim 6; and wherein: the first track and the second track are parallel; the first track and the second track extend in a first movement direction, as required by claim 7.
Itsumi teaches a similar means for moving a lens (e.g. see figure 7A actuator 60 moving lens 14 in holder 56), and further teaches a first track (e.g. upper guide 58), a second track (e.g. lower guide 58), and a first connecting portion (e.g. lower 56); wherein: the first movable portion is movably disposed on the first track (e.g. see figure 7A); the first connecting portion connects to the first holder (e.g. see figure 7A); the first connecting portion is movably disposed on the second track (e.g. see figure 7A) and the first track and the second track are parallel (e.g. see figure 7A); the first track and the second track extend in a first movement direction (e.g. see figure 7A), for the purpose of supporting the optical element and its holder such that they can be moved in parallel (column 7 lines 23-30). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system as disclosed by the combination of Bradski, Tseng and Smith to have the driving assembly further comprises a first track, a second track, and a first connecting portion; wherein: the first movable portion is movably disposed on the first track; the first connecting portion connects to the first holder; the first connecting portion is movably disposed on the second track, and the first track and the second track being parallel; the first track and the second track extend in a first movement direction as taught by Itsumi for the purpose of the purpose of supporting the optical element and its holder such that it can be moved in parallel.
Regarding claims 8-10, claims 8-10 duplicate the elements of claims 5-7. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. In this case, no new or unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system as disclosed by the combination of Bradski, Tseng and Smith to duplicate the elements of claims 5-7 since there are no new or unexpected result produced and duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, with respect to claim 11 (and therefore 12-20) none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed optical system specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, the third track and the fourth track extend in a second movement direction; the first movement direction and the second movement direction are different.
Particularly, the motion taught Bradski, alone or in combination with Tseng, Smith and Itsumi, is moving the lens/metalens along an optical axis for focusing. Moving the lens/metalens in a different direction with a duplicate driving assembly would not be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akkaya et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0346918; in regards to a similar optical system (title, e.g. figure 5 HMD device 500), comprising: an image source assembly used for providing light (e.g. microdisplay 518); a light-guiding element used for transmitting the light (e.g. waveguide combiner 524); and a light path adjusting assembly disposed between the image source assembly and the light-guiding element and used for adjusting a path of the light (e.g. world-side focus-tunable lens 504).
Engelberg et al. "The advantages of metalenses over diffractive lenses" Nature Communications (2020) 11:1991; in regards to substituting metalenses for conventional lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights