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 documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 19, 2024, May 29, 2024, April 14, 2025 and September 18, 2025 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 16 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a set of executable instructions, the set of executable instructions to manipulate a computer system to perform a portion of a process to fabricate at least part of a waveguide.” However, the specification does not describe which “set of executable instructions to manipulate a computer system to perform a portion of a process to fabricate at least part of a waveguide.” Paragraph [0032] discloses “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium or memory storing processor-executable instructions and other data that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to control the operation of the light engine.” Paragraph [0037] discloses “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium, which may store processor readable instructions thereon, which when executed by the processor can cause the processor to execute any number of functions, including causing the light engine 211 to output the light 290 representative of display content to be viewed by a user, receiving user input, managing user interfaces, generating display content to be presented to a user, receiving and managing data from any sensors carried by the wearable display device 200, receiving and processing external data and messages, and any other functions as appropriate for a given application.” It is not clear how these functions would enable the fabrication of “at least part of a waveguide” or which set of described instructions manipulates a computer system to perform a portion of a process to fabricate at least part of a waveguide.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a set of executable instructions, the set of executable instructions to manipulate a computer system to perform a portion of a process to fabricate at least part of a waveguide” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which “set of executable instructions to manipulate a computer system to perform a portion of a process to fabricate at least part of a waveguide.” Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the limitation has not been further treated on the merits because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). This is not an indication that the claims are allowable. The scope of the claim(s) is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP § 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph (emphasis added): … where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claims 17-20 inherently contain the indefiniteness of claim 16 as they depend on claim 16.
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 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultz et al. (WO2017120341A1), hereafter Schultz.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Schultz discloses a device and method comprising a waveguide (“imaging light guide 100”, Para. 50; Fig. 3A) to direct red, green, and blue (RGB) display light (“two color channel”, Para.50, 51; figs.3A,5) from a light engine (Image source. Para. 3)to an eye of a user (Para. 10), the waveguide (100) comprising: an optical substrate (Para. 50. Fig 1 “S”); an incoupler grating to receive the RGB display light from the light engine and to direct the RGB display light into the waveguide (“in-coupling diffractive optics 110R and 110BG”. Para 51. Fig 3B); an outcoupler grating to direct at least some of the RGB display light from the waveguide to the eye of the user (“out-coupling diffractive optics 120R and 120BG”, Para. 51, Fig. 3B); and one or more intermediate gratings to direct one or more portions of the RGB display light from the incoupler grating to the outcoupler grating (“Turning grating TGR and TGBG”. Para 51. Fig 3B. Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 2 and 10, Schultz discloses a device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate gratings include multiple intermediate gratings (Two different intermediate gratings TG in Fig. 3B. Para. 51), and wherein to direct the RGB display light into the waveguide includes to direct a first portion of the RGB display light from the light engine to a first intermediate grating of the multiple intermediate gratings and to direct a second portion of the RGB display light to a second intermediate grating of the multiple intermediate gratings (Para. 10).
Regarding Claim 3 and 11, Schultz discloses a device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses wherein the incoupler grating (110R and 110BG) and the one or more intermediate gratings (TG) are to direct red components of the RGB display light along a first path to(Bk) the outcoupler grating and to direct green and blue components of the RGB display light along a second path(F) to the outcoupler grating(120R and 120BG. Fig 3B. Para.51)
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Schultz discloses a device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate gratings include a first intermediate grating (TG) to direct the red components of the RGB display light along the first path and a second intermediate grating to direct the green and blue components of the RGB display light along the second path (two intermediate gratings TG in Fig.3B. Para51)
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (WO2017120341A1), hereafter Schultz.
Regarding Claim 16, Schultz discloses a waveguide (100) comprising: an optical substrate (Para. 50. Fig 1 “S”); an incoupler grating to receive the RGB display light from the light engine and to direct the RGB display light into the waveguide (“in-coupling diffractive optics 110R and 110BG”. Para 51. Fig 3B); an outcoupler grating to direct at least some of the RGB display light from the waveguide to the eye of the user (“out-coupling diffractive optics 120R and 120BG”, Para. 51, Fig. 3B); and one or more intermediate gratings to direct one or more portions of the RGB display light from the incoupler grating to the outcoupler grating (“Turning grating TGR and TGBG”. Para 51. Fig 3B. Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 17, Schultz discloses the waveguide of claim 16. Schultz further disclose, wherein the one or more intermediate gratings include multiple intermediate gratings (Two different intermediate gratings TG in Fig. 3B. Para. 51), and wherein to direct the RGB display light into the waveguide includes to direct a first portion of the RGB display light from the light engine to a first intermediate grating of the multiple intermediate gratings and to direct a second portion of the RGB display light to a second intermediate grating of the multiple intermediate gratings (Para. 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Schultz discloses the waveguide of claim 16. Schultz further discloses wherein the incoupler grating (110R and 110BG) and the one or more intermediate gratings (TG) are to direct red components of the RGB display light along a first path to (Bk) the outcoupler grating and to direct green and blue components of the RGB display light along a second path(F) to the outcoupler grating (120R and 120BG. Fig 3B. Para.51)
Claims 5-8, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (WO2017120341A1), hereafter Schultz, in view of Tervo (US20180292653A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Schultz discloses the device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses wherein directing the RGB display light via the one or more intermediate gratings (Two different intermediate gratings TG in Fig. 3B. Para. 51). Schultz fails to disclose the one or more intermediate grating includes directing the RGB display light via one or more multidimensional gratings, each multidimensional grating comprising two or more sets of substantially parallel structures formed in an optical substrate of the waveguide.
Tervo teaches one or more intermediate grating includes directing the RGB display light via one or more multidimensional gratings (see the multi-dimensional surface relief gratings 1905, 2005, 2105 and 2205 disclosed in figs. 19-22 which according to par.54 may form the incoupling gratings /DOES and/or the intermediate gratings/ DOEs), each multidimensional grating comprising two or more sets of substantially parallel structures (Par. 52) formed in an optical substrate (Par. 53).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Tervo to waveguide of Schultz to improve angular control and routing flexibility.
Regarding claim 6, Schultz/Tervo disclose the device comprising a waveguide of claim 1. Shultz/Tervo further discloses, an optical substrate Shultz/Tervo fails to disclose the optical substrate comprises one or more optical coatings, and wherein at least one of the one or more intermediate gratings is at least partially formed in at least one optical coating of the one or more optical coatings.
Schultz/Tervo discloses intermediate grating but does not limit their fabrication location, and because it well known to form diffractive gratings in optical coatings applied to waveguide structures, before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the intermediate grating of Schultz and Tervo to be at least partially formed in an optical coating.
Regarding Claim 7 and 14, Schultz discloses a device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses wherein and outcoupler grating (120R and 120BG. Fig 3B. Para.51) and the incoupler grating (110R and 110BG). Schultz fails to disclose the at least of the outcoupler and incoupler grating is a multidimensional grating, and wherein each multidimensional grating comprises two or more sets of substantially parallel structures formed in a portion of the optical substrate.
Tervo discloses, the at least of the outcoupler and incoupler grating (Par. 51) is a multidimensional grating, and wherein each multidimensional grating (see the multi-dimensional surface relief gratings 1905, 2005, 2105 and 2205 disclosed in figs. 19-22 which according to par.54 may form the incoupling gratings /DOES and/or the intermediate gratings/ DOEs), comprises two or more sets of substantially parallel structures (Par. 52) formed in a portion of the optical substrate (Par.53).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify in the outcoupler/incoupler gratings of Schultz with the multidimensional grating of Tervo. Such a modification is a known technique for enhancing grating performance and would yield predictable performance improvements.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Schultz discloses the device and method comprising a waveguide of claim 1 and 9. Schultz further discloses, receiving the RGB display light at an incoupler grating of a waveguide includes receiving the RGB display light at an incoupler grating in an optical substrate (Par. 55). Schultz fails to disclose an optical substrate having a refractive index of 1.6 or less.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize low-index material (e.g. silicon dioxide), which is commonly used as waveguide substrates in near eye display systems. Such material has refractive indices of approximately 1.45. The use of low-index material for optical waveguides is basic and widely recognized principles in the field.
Regarding claim 19, Schultz discloses the waveguide of claim 16, Schultz further discloses intermediate gratings (Two different intermediate gratings TG in Fig. 3B. Para. 51). Schultz fails to disclose each intermediate grating is a multidimensional grating comprising two or more sets of substantially parallel structures formed in an optical substrate of the waveguide.
Tervo teaches one or more intermediate grating includes directing the RGB display light via one or more multidimensional gratings (see the multi-dimensional surface relief gratings 1905, 2005, 2105 and 2205 disclosed in figs. 19-22 which according to par.54 may form the incoupling gratings /DOES and/or the intermediate gratings/ DOEs), each multidimensional grating comprising two or more sets of substantially parallel structures (Par. 52) formed in an optical substrate (Par. 53).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Tervo to waveguide of Schultz to improve angular control and routing flexibility.
Regarding claim 20, Schultz discloses the waveguide of claim 16. Schultz fails to disclose an optical substrate having a refractive index of 1.6 or less.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize low-index material (e.g. silicon dioxide), which is commonly used as waveguide substrates in near eye display systems. Such material has refractive indices of approximately 1.45. The use of low-index material for optical waveguides is basic and widely recognized principles in the field.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874