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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 3/06/2026 Applicant amended claims 1-2, 6, and 10.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210103072 A1 to Nikolov et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Nikolov discloses an atypical metasurface, comprising: a 2-dimensional plane; and a plurality of atypical unit structures periodically arranged on the 2-dimensional plane (See Fig. 2A top and side views and Fig. 3A), wherein each of the plurality of atypical unit structures has an atypical pattern that is not periodic (as seen in Fig. 2A top and side views), and wherein the atypical pattern has multiple different widths in one direction (See at least Fig. 2A and Fig. 3A where the pattern contains at least two different widths in a single direction).
Regarding Claim 2. Nikolov further discloses each of the plurality of atypical unit structures is configured to achieve a diffractive efficiency at a target diffraction order (See at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 5B).
Regarding Claim 3. Nikolov further discloses the target diffraction order is a 1 st-order diffraction order (See Fig. 5B, para 63).
Regarding Claim 4. Nikolov further discloses a width of each of the plurality of atypical unit structures is less than an operating wavelength of the atypical metasurface (See Fig. 2A, w1=180 nm).
Regarding Claim 5. Nikolov further discloses the width of each of the plurality of atypical unit structures is more than one hundred nm for an operating wavelength of a visible light band (See Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 6. Nikolov further discloses each of the plurality of atypical unit structures comprises a plurality of regions divided by a grid on the 2-dimensional plane, the plurality of regions being filled with a dielectric having a refractive index greater than air or not filled with any material (See Fig. 2A, para 38).
Regarding Claim 7. Nikolov further discloses each region of the plurality of regions is any one of square shaped, rectangular shaped, circular shaped, and polygonal shaped (See Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 8. Nikolov further discloses the plurality of regions have a subwavelength size of 20 nm or more, or 10 nm or less (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9. Nikolov further discloses each of the plurality of atypical unit structures is formed of at least one of a-Si, a-Si:H, TiO2, and GaN (See para 38).
Regarding Claim 10. Nikolov further discloses a waveguide image combiner comprising: a waveguide (Fig. 7A lens 50); an input-coupling element (Fig. 7A fold prism 40); and an output-coupling element (Fig. 7A combiner 20), wherein at least one of the input-coupling element and the output-coupling element is the atypical metasurface according to claim 1 (para 75 “combiner 20 may be provided with a see-through reflective metasurface diffraction grating surface to assist in directing the display image beams to the user's eye”), and wherein the waveguide is configured to allow a light to be input into the input-coupling element and output the light through the output-coupling element (as shown in Fig. 7A and para 73).
Regarding Claim 11. Nikolov further discloses the waveguide image combiner is configured to guide the light output from the display engine to a target region being an eye motion box of a user (See Fig. 7A eyebox 10).
Regarding Claim 14. Nikolov further discloses the input-coupling element and the output-coupling element are formed on a surface of the waveguide by etching or imprinting (See Fig. 7A and para 73 it is noted that this limitation is a product by process claim. “[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolov as applied to claim 11 in view of US 20200371281 A1 to Schultz.
Regarding Claim 12. As stated above Nikolov discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Nikolov further discloses, an augmented reality glasses comprising a left-eye element and a right-eye element corresponding to a left eye and a right eye of the user, the left-eye element or the right-eye element comprises the display engine and the waveguide image combiner (as shown in Fig. 7A)
Nikolov does not specifically disclose that each of the left-eye element and the right-eye element comprises the display engine and the waveguide image combiner.
However, Schultz discloses that each of the left-eye element and the right-eye element comprises the display engine and the waveguide image combiner (as shown in Fig. 9 para 56). as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that each of the left-eye element and the right-eye element comprises the display engine and the waveguide image combiner.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolov as applied to claim 10 in view of US 20200371281 A1 to Schultz.
Regarding Claim 13. As stated above Nikolov discloses all the limitations of base claim 10.
Nikolov does not specifically disclose that the input-coupling element and the output-coupling element are separately manufactured and attached to a surface of the waveguide.
However, Schultz discloses that the input-coupling element and the output-coupling element are separately manufactured (this limitation is a product by process claim. “[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113) and attached to a surface of the waveguide (as shown in Fig. 5B). as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the input-coupling element and the output-coupling element are separately manufactured and attached to a surface of the waveguide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose all the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose that the atypical pattern has multiple different widths in one direction.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because as presented above, the prior art of record discloses the atypical pattern has multiple different widths in one direction (where at least Fig. 2A of the prior art of record discloses an atypical pattern with at least two different widths in the x-direction).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights