DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 22, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 remain pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 § 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, 6, 8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tekolste et al. US 2018/0113313 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 10,073,267 B2).
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Tekolste et al. US 2018/0113313 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 3, 9, 19, 22A, 22B; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0003], [0004], [0048], [0049], [0054], [0056], [0058], [0075]; Claims, noting claims 1-4, 8, 10) a display structure (Fig. 9, note para [0003], [0048] – [0049]) comprising: a waveguide 802 comprising a first face (the upper face, toward grating feature in Fig. 9) and a second face (lower face of the waveguide) for confining light in the waveguide by total internal reflection (TIR in the display waveguide of Tekolste implied for some transmitted light images / signals, [0032]), the second face arranged towards a thickness direction from the first face; and a diffractive out-coupling grating (“Grating” in Fig. 9, at 800 – 810 – 820 – 830) arranged on the first face (“toward the world”), the out-coupling grating configured to couple light out of the waveguide via the second face (down to the user’s eyes); wherein the out-coupling grating comprises a primary ridge 830 and a secondary ridge 820 parallel to the primary ridge (see Fig. 9, para [0048]), the secondary ridge arranged towards a primary lateral direction from the primary ridge (to the side of the top ridge thereof, Fig. 9); the primary ridge comprises a first end facing a secondary lateral direction opposite to the primary lateral direction, a first ridge portion (top of 830) extending towards the primary lateral direction from the first end, a second end facing the primary lateral direction, and a second ridge portion (top of 820) extending towards the secondary lateral direction from the second end; and the first ridge portion has a first height, h1, measured along the thickness direction from the first face of the waveguide (note that in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of Fig. 9, the overall “first height”, or the top of the first ridge, can be Ho (20 nm) + H1 (50 nm) + H2 (75 nm) = 145 nm), the second ridge portion has a second height, h₂, measured along the thickness direction from the first face, less than the first height, h1, (in the same BRI for Fig. 9, para [0056], the overall “second height”, or the top of the 2nd ridge, can be Ho (20 nm) + H1 (50 nm) = 70 nm), and a height ratio rh, between the second height, h2, and the first height, h1, is greater than or equal to 0.45 (in this BRI of Fig. 9, the ratio is 70 nm / 145 nm (which includes the ”height” part of the grating layer 810; and equals 0.483), and in which the first and second ridges have widths, and in which the ratio of these widths are from 1.1 to 3 (in which Fig. 9 shows that the width of the right ridge is bigger than the left right, approximately 2 times larger (w1 vs. w2)) which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding the BRI of the ridge heights in Tekolste US ‘313, the overall height of the top of the ridge 830 can be measured as the height from the bottom of layer 810. This can be the starting point of measurement from the “first face.” Therefore, and in view of para [0056], the height of Tekolste’s top of ridge 830 can be 145 nm. Further, in the same frame of reference and using para [0056], the height of Tekolste’s top of ridge 830 can be 70 nm. Layer 810 is clearly shown as a part of the grating. Therefore, the ratio of the heights can be 70 nm / 145 nm = 0.483. Such height ratio therefore clearly and fully anticipates the claimed language, at least based on one example embodiments for the heights of layers 810 / 820 / 830 of Tekolste’s grating. Note that the height of a mountain is based on sea level, even though the mountain’s slope may start at substantially higher elevations.
Additionally, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the Written Opinion from the INTL Searching Authority for corresponding PCT FI ‘548. All such features are anticipated in claim 1, based on para [0056], but also embodiments in Claim 4 (Tekolste) and Claim 10. Note the full text of Section 2.2 in the Written Opinion. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is fully anticipated as the range of ratios of heights of the ridges go up to about 0.57, depending on different frames of reference for what the heights of the ridges are based upon (Section 2.3).
Further regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12-16, see Tekolste ‘313 embodiments and the discussion in Section 2.4 of the Written Opinion from PCT FI ‘548. Therefore, all such features of those dependencies can be found as clearly anticipated in a structural sense by this close prior art or Tekolste.
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.
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.
Claims 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste et al. US 2018/0113313 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 10,073,267 B2), based on sole pending independent claim 1, and further in view of Luo et al. US 2021/0033867 A1 (for dependent claim 11 only).
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Tekolste et al. US 2018/0113313 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 3, 9, 19, 22A, 22B; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0003], [0004], [0048], [0049], [0054], [0056], [0058], [0075]; Claims, noting claims 1-4, 8, 10) a display structure (Fig. 9, note para [0003], [0048] – [0049]) comprising: a waveguide 802 comprising a first face (the upper face, toward grating feature in Fig. 9) and a second face (lower face of the waveguide) for confining light in the waveguide by total internal reflection (TIR in the display waveguide of Tekolste implied for some transmitted light images / signals, [0032]), the second face arranged towards a thickness direction from the first face; and a diffractive out-coupling grating (“Grating” in Fig. 9, at 800 – 810 – 820 – 830) arranged on the first face (“toward the world”), the out-coupling grating configured to couple light out of the waveguide via the second face (down to the user’s eyes); wherein the out-coupling grating comprises a primary ridge 830 and a secondary ridge 820 parallel to the primary ridge (see Fig. 9, para [0048]), the secondary ridge arranged towards a primary lateral direction from the primary ridge (to the side of the top ridge thereof, Fig. 9); the primary ridge comprises a first end facing a secondary lateral direction opposite to the primary lateral direction, a first ridge portion (top of 830) extending towards the primary lateral direction from the first end, a second end facing the primary lateral direction, and a second ridge portion (top of 820) extending towards the secondary lateral direction from the second end; and the first ridge portion has a first height, h1, measured along the thickness direction from the first face (note that in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of Fig. 9, the overall “first height”, or the top of the first ridge, can be Ho (20 nm) + H1 (50 nm) + H2 (75 nm) = 145 nm), the second ridge portion has a second height, h₂, measured along the thickness direction from the first face, less than the first height, h1, (in the same BRI for Fig. 9, para [0056], the overall “second height”, or the top of the 2nd ridge, can be Ho (20 nm) + H1 (50 nm) = 70 nm), and a height ratio rh, between the second height, h2, and the first height, h1, is greater than or equal to 0.45 (in this BRI of Fig. 9, the ratio is 70 nm / 145 nm (which includes the ”height” part of the grating layer 810; and equals 0.483). Regarding the BRI of the ridge heights in Tekolste US ‘313, the overall height of the top of the ridge 830 can be measured as the height from the bottom of layer 810. Therefore, and in view of para [0056], the height of Tekolste’s top of ridge 830 can be 145 nm. Further, in the same frame of reference and using para [0056], the height of Tekolste’s top of ridge 830 can be 70 nm. Layer 810 is clearly shown as a part of the grating. Therefore, the ratio of the heights can be 70 nm / 145 nm = 0.483. Such height ratio therefore clearly and fully anticipates the claimed language, at least based on one example embodiments for the heights of layers 810 / 820 / 830 of Tekolste’s grating. Tekolste also mathematically shows features of the heights of the grating ridges that may go up to a ratio of about 0.57. Note that the height of a mountain is based on sea level, even though the mountain’s slope may start at substantially higher elevations.
Regarding further dependent claim 11, Tekolste does not expressly and exactly teach that an intermediate ridge exists between the first and second ridge portions and that there is a sloping intermediate outer surface that connects such features (see Applicant’s Fig. 3 for the slope).
However, Luo US ‘867 teaches similar grating profile configurations which connect two ridge features with a sloping intermediate formation, as an intermediary and connection point therebetween (see Luo ABS; diffraction gratings for waveguide couplers, with examples such as slopes in Figs. 11C and 11D). Such sloping configuration can smooth out the transition point and improve the out-coupling function of the grating through the waveguide, but diffractive properties to be more usable.
Since Tekolste and Luo are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Luo would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Tekolste.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Luo, to use sloping intermediate formations between two ridge portions of a diffractive grating, into the base design of the display structure of Tekolste, to allow for improved smoothing of the out coupling signals by not having harsh edges in the ridges for coupling wavelengths of light to the viewer’s eyes, for improving optical operation and user experience of the display. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of a “sloping intermediate” portion of the diffractive grating. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claim 11 is found obvious over Tekolste and further in view of Luo.
Further regarding dependent claims 5, 7, 9, and 10, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs such features in Tekolste (features of refractive index differences (claim 5); the period and ratios of the ridges (claim 7); or the width ratios and mathematical calculation for the step profile (claims 9-10)). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the designs found in claims 5, 7, 9, and/or 10, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Tekolste to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (ratios of features chosen, differences of RI, periods, width ratios, etc.) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signal propagation of the display to the user based on the diffractive grating features. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a display waveguide and diffraction grating such as in Tekolste. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is clearly and full anticipated by Tekolste (see para [0056] and claim 1 above). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Tekolste to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5, 7, 9, and 10. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Additionally, the Examiner agrees with the conclusion of the INTL Written Opinion (see Section 3 – 3.3) for obviousness of features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 (pages 7-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There is nothing inherently wrong with using an arbitrary baseline (distance from the waveguide “first face”) in a determination of “height(s).” Although the prior art reference to Tekolste US ‘313 may have differences in relation to the current application, the cited reference and features therein meets the claimed structural features in claim 1, and in other dependent claims. Limitations of inventive concepts need not be read into the claims unless they are expressly claimed. If there are 5 books stacked on a table, the “height” of the top-most book can be measured from any arbitrary point, as long as such reference is consistent with the “height” of any other book (measured from same baseline). This action is made FINAL, both for 35 U.S.C. 102 and the rejections (to claims 5, 7, and 9-11) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference A to Drazic US ‘085, which pertains to the state of the art of in-coupling gratings on waveguides with different ridge sections.
Applicant's amendment dated April 22, 2026 has necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection, or shifting ground(s) of rejection, as presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Mere frames-of-reference for “height” and “width” are met by Tekolste US ‘313. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights