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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 3/19/2024 has been entered. The applicant’s amendment filed 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2026.
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 applicant now recites only a laser light source for the first light source. However, this is not what was originally disclosed—the first light source is not just a laser light source, it is a laser or an LED. This is new matter. There was no possession of only a laser as the first light source, it is either a laser or LED. Further, there is no criticality to the invention being a laser. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 a further rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
In regard to claim 15, the applicant recites the limitation of “such as a head-up display device.” This limitation is indefinite—the full claim scope cannot be determined. Appropriate correction is required.
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,
an in-coupling structure, 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, wherein the optical engine comprising comprises an illumination arrangement comprising:
a first light source configured to emit first light having a first peak wavelength, λ1 peak, and
a superluminescent light source configured to emit second light having a second peak wavelength, λ2 peak different from the first peak wavelength, λ1 peak;
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Parsons et al (US 10,705,341 B1) disclose a waveguide display.
Gao et al (US 11,526,016 B1) disclose a display.
Raring et al (US 2021/0215319 A1) disclose a laser source.
Ratnam et al (US 10,725,304 B1) disclose an compensatory image.
Raring et al (US 10,718,491 B1) disclose an illumination device.
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