DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the original claims are a part of the disclosure. The applicant filed claims where the first light source is either a laser light source or an LED. They can’t amend around prior art and say that their invention was only a laser light source the whole time. That’s not what you disclosed. The Examiner appreciates that you filed multiple embodiments, but the differences between them were not the nexus of invention that was originally filed. The nexus of invention, at filing, said that it could be either a laser or an LED—it wasn’t important at filing. Coming back after the fact and eliminating the LED is in fact new matter—this wasn’t your invention at filing, you are making a new invention. The Examiner wishes to test this at the board.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 a further rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulk (EP 3 691 062 A1) in view of Koshelev et al (US 2022/0035159 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Dulk discloses a display structure, comprising:
a waveguide (32),
an in-coupling structure (31), and
an optical engine configured to direct light via the in-coupling structure into the waveguide for propagation in the waveguide by total internal reflection (there is some TIR occurring in the lenses 31 and 32), wherein the optical engine comprising comprises an illumination arrangement comprising:
a first light source (15) configured to emit first light having a first peak wavelength, λ1 peak, and
a superluminescent light source (62 or 82) configured to emit second light having a second peak wavelength, λ2 peak different from the first peak wavelength, λ1 peak; (15, 62, and 82 are in fact at different peaks)
wherein the first light source is implemented as a laser light source and the superluminescent light source comprises a superluminescent diode. (Figures 17-23; see at least [0110]-[0130])
Dulk fails to disclose a laser light source. However, as admitted by the instant application, laser diodes and LEDs are art recognized alternatives.
Koshelev et al also teaches that laser diodes and LEDs are art recognized alternatives. (See [0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the LED with a laser diode in order to use an art recognized alternative.
In regard to claim 2, Dulk discloses the second peak wavelength, λ2 peak, is higher than the first peak wavelength, λ1 peak.
In regard to claim 3, Dulk discloses the second light has a second optical spectrum with a full-width half-maximum, FWHM, linewidth, λ2 FWHM greater than or equal to 2 nm, or to 3 nm, or to 4 nm, or to 5 nm and/or less than or equal to 50 nm, or to 40 nm, or to 30 nm, or to 20 nm, or to 10 nm.
In regard to claim 4, Dulk discloses the second peak wavelength, λ2 peak, lies in a red wavelength range extending from 600 nm to 750 nm, or from 610 nm to 700 nm, or from 620 nm to 650 nm, or from 625 nm to 640 nm.
In regard to claim 5, Dulk fails to disclose the superluminescent diode comprises an active layer comprising aluminum gallium indium phosphide, AlGaInP. However, AlGaLnP is a known phosphide for producing red light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use aluminum gallium indium phosphide in order to produce the red light using a known phosphide.
In regard to claim 6, Dulk discloses the illumination arrangement comprises a further light source configured to emit third light having a third peak wavelength, λ3 peak, different from each of the first peak wavelength, λ1 peak, and the second peak wavelength, λ2 peak.
In regard to claim 7, Dulk fails to disclose the further light source is implemented as a further laser light source or as a further superluminescent light source.
However, laser diodes, superluminescent diodes, LEDs are art recognized alternatives.
In regard to claim 8, Dulk discloses the second peak wavelength, λ2 peak, is higher than the third peak wavelength, λ3 peak.
In regard to claim 9 and 10, Dulk discloses the optical engine further comprises a light scanner arrangement for deflecting light generated by the illumination arrangement, and as recited in claim 10, wherein the light scanner arrangement comprises a micromirror scanner (40r).
In regard to claim 13, Dulk fails to disclose the waveguide has a thickness, T, greater than or equal to 0.25 mm, or to 0.27 mm, or to 0.3 mm and/or less than or equal to 5 mm, or to 2 mm, or to 1 mm.
However, this is routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thickness of the waveguide in order to optimize the thickness of the display.
In regard to claim 14, Dulk discloses a display device comprising a display structure in accordance with any of claim 1.
In regard to claim 15, Dulk fails to disclose a display device according to claim 14 implemented as a see-through display device, such as a head-up display device.
However, see-through head-up displays are known and they require life light sources, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the light source of Dulk to illuminate a heads-up display in order to form a heads-up display.
In regard to claim 16, Dulk fails to disclose a display device according to claim 14 implemented as a head-mounted display device.
However, head-mounted displays are known and they require life light sources, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the light source of Dulk to illuminate a head-mounted display in order to form a head-mounted display.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulk (EP 3 691 062 A1) in view of Koshelev et al (US 2022/0035159 A1), and further, in view of, Amirsolaimani et al (US 12,124,029 B2).
In regard to claim 12, Dulk fails to disclose a diffractive in-coupling structure.
Amirsolaimani et al teaches a diffractive in-coupling structure. (Figure 2A; see Col 6 Line 63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a diffractive in-coupling structure in order to improve light output and differentiate the signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner appreciates the technical detail of Dulk and the applicants arguments, but the problem is is that these claims are broad. An “in-coupling structure”? How broad is that? That can be anything. “A waveguide”? Super broad. Dulk teaches multiple differently colored light sources, and has a plurality of lenses. These can be interpreted as an in-coupling structure and a waveguide. Lenses have a degree of TIR occurring. In terms of the display, this is not positively recited in the body of the claim.
As it stands, these claims are broad, and can be rejected by art dissimilar to its disclosure. This is actually evidence that there are missing essential elements to the applicant’s invention—the Examiner just isn’t sure what those missing essential elements are, so did not issue a 112(a) In Re Mayhew rejection.
The rejection is Final.
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 CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights