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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0057308 A1) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0408826 A1).
Re claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a device comprising a waveguide plate (98); a coupling-in element group, which includes a coupling-in volume holographic optical element (102) and a coupling-in refractive element (100) disposed on both corresponding sides of the waveguide plate, respectively; a coupling-out element group, which includes a coupling-out volume holographic optical element (104) and a coupling-out refractive element (80) disposed on both corresponding sides of the waveguide plate (paragraph 0029), respectively; and a display panel (26); wherein the coupling-in volume holographic optical element and the coupling-out volume holographic optical element are located on the same side of the waveguide plate (Fig. 3), and the coupling-in refractive element and the coupling-out refractive element are located on the same side of the waveguide plate (Fig. 3). Choi et al. does not disclose the device comprising a projection lens group, the projection lens group being located between the display panel and the waveguide plate, and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group.
Oh et al. discloses a device comprising a projection lens group (414) (paragraph 0133), the projection lens group being located between the display panel (412) and the waveguide plate (420), and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a projection lens group, the projection lens group being located between the display panel and the waveguide plate, and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group since one would be motivated to project images generated by the display module to the user’s eye. In this case, the coupling-in refractive element of Choi et al. may be included in the projection lens group.
Re claim 2, Choi et al. discloses the device wherein the waveguide plate is one of a glass or a transparent polymer substrate with high refractive index (paragraph 0032).
As to the product-by-process claim limitation of claim 3, "wherein writing of the coupled-in volume holographic optical element and writing of the coupled-out volume holographic optical element are based on volume holographic grating formed by interference recording of a plane wave in skewed light direction and a plane wave in propagation direction of total reflection in the waveguide plate, and both of the plane waves being arranged in a mirror relationship during the writing”, [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2114).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. and Oh et al. in view of Adema et al. (US 2025/0102742 A1).
Re claim 4, Choi et al. discloses a device comprising a waveguide plate (98); a coupling-in element group, which includes a coupling-in volume holographic optical element (102), respectively; a coupling-out element group, which includes a coupling-out volume holographic optical element (104) and a coupling-out refractive element (80) disposed on both corresponding sides of the waveguide plate (paragraph 0029), respectively; and a display panel (26); wherein the coupling-in volume holographic optical element and the coupling-out volume holographic optical element are located on the same side of the waveguide plate (Fig. 3). Choi et al. does not disclose the device comprising a projection lens group, the projection lens group being located between the display panel and the waveguide plate, and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group.
Oh et al. discloses a device comprising a projection lens group (414) (paragraph 0133), the projection lens group being located between the display panel (412) and the waveguide plate (420), and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a projection lens group, the projection lens group being located between the display panel and the waveguide plate, and the display panel being located at a front focal plane of the projection lens group since one would be motivated to project images generated by the display module to the user’s eye.
Choi et al. also does not disclose the device comprising a coupling-in reflective element disposed on another side of the waveguide plate from the coupling-in volume holographic optical element; and the coupling-in reflective element and the coupling-out refractive element are located on the same side of the waveguide plate.
Adema et al. discloses a device comprising a coupling-in reflective element (206, 208).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a coupling-in reflective element disposed on another side of the waveguide plate from the coupling-in volume holographic optical element; and the coupling-in reflective element and the coupling-out refractive element are located on the same side of the waveguide plate since one would be motivated to selectively direct light to multiple incouplers based on the light’s optical characteristics utilizing a plurality of transmissive and reflective elements (paragraph 0002).
Re claim 5, Choi et al. discloses the device wherein the waveguide plate is one of a glass or a transparent polymer substrate with high refractive index (paragraph 0032).
As to the product-by-process claim limitation of claim 6, "wherein writing of the coupled-in volume holographic optical element and writing of the coupled-out volume holographic optical element are based on volume holographic grating formed by interference recording of a plane wave in skewed light direction and a plane wave in propagation direction of total reflection in the waveguide plate, and both of the plane waves being arranged in a mirror relationship during the writing”, [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871