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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 12 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(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 12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levola (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0321781 A1)1.
Levola teaches, as in claim 12, a head-mounted device (Fig. 1 and 5a), comprising, a head-mounted support structure (Figs. 1), a display unit (110) in the head-mounted support structure ((¶0123 “display device 200 may also be attached to a headgear, e.g. to a helmet”), and an optical system (200) that receives light from the display unit (110) and that redirects the light out of the optical system (200, light goes to E1 shown in Fig. 1), wherein the optical system (200) comprises, a waveguide (7, ¶0043 “substrate 7 is waveguiding”) having a surface (41), an input coupler (10) comprising a first diffractive grating (11) on the waveguide (7) and configured to couple the light into the waveguide (7) through the surface (41), a light-redirecting element (20) comprising a second diffractive grating (¶0074 “crossed grating 20 comprises a plurality of diffractive features arranged along a first set of parallel lines and along a second set of parallel lines such that the lines of the first set are perpendicular to the lines of the second set”) on the waveguide (7), and an output coupler (30) comprising a third diffractive grating (31) on the waveguide (7), wherein the light-redirecting element (20) is interposed between the input coupler (10) and the output coupler (30), wherein the input coupler (10), the light- redirecting element (20), and the output coupler (30) are formed on respective non-overlapping regions of the waveguide (7, Fig. 1 and 5a).
Levola teaches, as in claim 15, wherein the light-redirecting element comprises a fourth diffractive grating2 (¶0074 “crossed grating 20 comprises a plurality of diffractive features arranged along a first set of parallel lines and along a second set of parallel lines such that the lines of the first set are perpendicular to the lines of the second set”) that is non-parallel to the second diffractive grating (Fig. 7 lines on 20 are non-parallel).
Levola teaches, as in claim 16, a head-mounted device (Fig. 1), comprising :a head-mounted support structure (Fig. 2b), a display unit (110) in the head-mounted support structure (¶0123 “display device 200 may also be attached to a headgear, e.g. to a helmet”), and an optical system (Fig. 7a) that receives light from the display unit (110) and that redirects the light out of the optical system (200), wherein the optical system (200) comprises: a first coupler (10) having a first diffractive grating (11), a second coupler (20) having second and third non- parallel diffractive gratings that overlap each other3, and a waveguide (7, ¶0043 “substrate 7 is waveguiding”) that propagates the light from the first coupler (10) to the second coupler (20, see Fig. 1a), wherein the waveguide (7) has a surface (41) through which the light is received from the display unit (110) and through which the light is redirected out of the waveguide.
Levola teaches, as in claim 17, further comprising a third coupler (30) having a fourth diffractive grating (31) on the waveguide (7).
Levola teaches, as in claim 18, wherein the first coupler (10) receives the light from the display unit (110) and couples the light into the waveguide (7) and wherein the third coupler (30) receives the light from the second coupler (20) and couples the light out of the waveguide (7).
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 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 teaches 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 9-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abovitz (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0016777 A1) in view of Robbins (US Patent Number 8,233,204 B1).
Abovitz teaches, as in claim 1, a display system, comprising, a head-mounted support structure (Figs. 3A), a display unit (164) in the head-mounted support structure, an optical system (13a, 13b, 15 & 19) that receives light from the display unit (164) and that redirects the light out of the optical system (Figs. 5A-5C, 8), wherein the optical system includes an input coupler (edge of waveguide 802a proximal to unlabeled distribution waveguide 3 in Fig. 8), an output coupler (DOE 2 in waveguide 802a, Fig. 8), and a waveguide (waveguide 802a, Fig. 8) that propagates the light from the input coupler to the output coupler, (left and right with respect to Fig. 8), Abovitz fails to teach wherein the output coupler includes first and second non-parallel diffractive gratings that overlap each other. In a related art, Robbins teaches a head-mounted support structure wherein the output coupler (1104) includes first and second non-parallel diffractive gratings that overlap each other4 (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz, with the diffraction gratings, as taught by Robbins, for the purpose of providing a diffractive grating that propagates light to an output for display or allowing propagated light to pass through based on the switching state (Col. 2, lines 23-25).
Abovitz fails to teach, as in claim 6, wherein the second diffractive grating is located in an upper portion of the output coupler and a lower portion of the output coupler. In a related art, Robbins teaches wherein the second diffractive grating is located in an upper portion of the output coupler (Column B first square) and a lower portion of the output coupler5 (Col C second square down).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz and Robbins, with the diffraction gratings, as taught by Robbins, for the purpose of providing a diffractive grating that propagates light to an output for display or allowing propagated light to pass through based on the switching state (Col. 2, lines 23-25).
Abovitz teaches, as in claim 9, wherein the display unit comprises a liquid crystal on silicon display (¶0222).
Abovitz teaches, as in claim 10, wherein the display unit comprises a projector (¶0161).
Abovitz teaches, as in claim 11, wherein the input coupler and the output coupler are located on the same side of the waveguide (Fig. 8).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abovitz (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0016777 A1) in view of Robbins (US Patent Number 8,233,204 B1) and in further view of Wall (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0235142 A1).
Abovitz and Robbins fail to teach as in claim 3, wherein the input coupler and the output coupler each include a holographic optical element. In a related art, Wall teaches wherein the input coupler and the output coupler each include a holographic optical element (¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz and Robbins, with the holographic optical element, as taught by Wall for the purpose of providing a way to reduce dark spots in a viewed virtual image, reduce ghost images, and more generally, reduce the loss of some of the full image content (¶0003).
Abovitz teaches, as in claim 4, a display system, comprising, a head-mounted support structure (Figs. 3A), a display unit (164) in the head-mounted support structure, an optical system (13a, 13b, 15 & 19) that receives light from the display unit (164) and that redirects the light out of the optical system (Figs. 5A-5C, 8), wherein the optical system includes an input coupler (edge of waveguide 802a proximal to unlabeled distribution waveguide 3 in Fig. 8), an output coupler (DOE 2 in waveguide 802a, Fig. 8), and a waveguide (waveguide 802a, Fig. 8) that propagates the light from the input coupler to the output coupler, (left and right with respect to Fig. 8), Abovitz fails to teach wherein the output coupler includes first and second non-parallel diffractive gratings. In a related art, Robbins teaches a head-mounted support structure wherein the output coupler (1104) includes first and second non-parallel diffractive gratings (Fig. 11, Column B 1st square and Column C 2nd square down).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz, with the diffraction gratings, as taught by Robbins, for the purpose of providing a diffractive grating that propagates light to an output for display or allowing propagated light to pass through based on the switching state (Col. 2, lines 23-25).
Abovitz and Robbins fail to teach wherein the input coupler and the output coupler each include a holographic optical element. In a related art, Wall teaches wherein the input coupler (112) and the output coupler (116) each include a holographic optical element (¶ 0025 “The input-coupler 112, the intermediate-component 114 and the output-coupler 116 can each be implemented as a diffraction grating, or more generally, as a diffractive optical element (DOE). Such DOEs can be produced using holographic processes, in which case, the DOEs can be more specifically referred to a holographic optical element”), wherein the holographic optical elements are color multiplexed (¶0088 “the light output by the display engine 204 include alternative colors, such as, but not limited to, cyan, magenta and yellow, in which cases the input-couplers 112, output-couplers 116 and coating(s) 422 would be designed for such alternative wavelength ranges. It is also within the scope of the present technology that more than three colors of light be output by the display engine 204, e.g., the display engine 204 can output red, green, blue and yellow light corresponding to an image”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz and Robbins, with the holographic optical element, as taught by Wall for the purpose of providing a way to reduce dark spots in a viewed virtual image, reduce ghost images, and more generally, reduce the loss of some of the full image content (¶0003).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abovitz (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0016777 A1) in view of Robbins (US Patent Number 8,233,204 B1) and in further view of Raguin (US Patent Publication Number 2006/0119837 A1).
Abovitz and Robbins fail to teach, as in claim 7, wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings. In a related art, Raguin teaches wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings (¶0043 “the DOEs are spatially separated, these DOEs may be volume holograms, but may also be, by way of example, surface-relief gratings”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz and Robbins, with the surface relief gratings, as taught by Raguin, for the purpose of providing high-efficiency gratings (¶0043).
Abovitz and Robbins fail to teach, as in claim 8, wherein the input and output couplers comprise volume holograms. In a related art, Raguin teaches wherein the input and output couplers comprise volume holograms (¶0043 “the DOEs are spatially separated, these DOEs may be volume holograms”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Abovitz and Robbins, with the volume holograms, as taught by Raguin, for the purpose of providing high-efficiency gratings (¶0043).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levola (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0321781 A1) in view of Raguin (US Patent Publication Number 2006/0119837 A1).
Levola fails to teach, as in claim 13, wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings. In a related art, Raguin teaches wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings (¶0043 “the DOEs are spatially separated, these DOEs may be volume holograms”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Stenberg, with the surface relief gratings, as taught by Raguin, for the purpose of providing high-efficiency gratings (¶0043).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levola (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0321781 A1) in view of Robbins (US Patent Number 8,233,204 B1),
Levola fails to teach, as in claim 19, wherein the first coupler couples the light into the waveguide and the second coupler couples the light out of the waveguide. In a related art, Robbins teaches a head-mounted support structure wherein the first coupler (1102) couples the light into the waveguide (1100) and the second coupler (1104) couples the light out of the waveguide (1100).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Levola, with the input and output couplers, as taught by Robbins, for the purpose of providing a diffractive grating that propagates light to an output for display or allowing propagated light to pass through based on the switching state (Col. 2, lines 23-25).
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levola (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0321781 A1) and in view of Raguin (US Patent Publication Number 2006/0119837 A1).
Levola fails to teach, as in claim 20, wherein the first coupler comprises an input coupler and the second coupler comprises an output coupler and wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings. In a related art, Raguin teaches wherein the first coupler comprises an input coupler and the second coupler comprises an output coupler and wherein the input and output couplers comprise surface relief gratings (¶0043 “the DOEs are spatially separated, these DOEs may be volume holograms, but may also be, by way of example, surface-relief gratings”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Levola, with the surface relief gratings, as taught by Raguin, for the purpose of providing high-efficiency gratings (¶0043).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of independent claim 2 which includes wherein a thickness of the input and output couplers is greater than a thickness of the waveguide.
Claim 5 is 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 prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 5 wherein the first and second non-parallel diffractive gratings have a modulated diffraction efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http,//pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
10 April 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 This is a different reference than Levola (US 2010/0214659 A1) that was used in the previous rejection.
2 The second set of lines is considered the second diffractive grating in which Fig. 7 shows them overlapping.
3 The second set of lines is considered the second diffractive grating in which Fig. 7 shows them overlapping.
4 in the column labeled B, the 1 square in the array, shows the output coupler including gratings that are overlapping. Also see column C second square down.
Prosecution Insights