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 listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Schuck does not disclose the optical waveguide arrangement is configured to modulate the wavelength of the light source based on an angle of incidence of the light in the waveguide onto the notch filter element and/or based on an angle of incidence of the light to the waveguide: First, these limitations are functions of the claimed structure and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). All of the structure of claim 1 has been meet, so there are no functional limitations that distinguish from the art.
Regarding the argument that Schuck only teaches spatial modulation of an image and not a modulation of the wavelength of the source based on an angle of incidence on the filter or waveguide: As seen in Fig. 13, RBG light from a source are modulated (block or transmitted) by the filters (1324, 1334) of the stack (1305, 1310, 1320, 1330), which reads on modulating light source based on the angle of incidence (perpendicular) of light on those gratings (P0115-0118).
Regarding the argument that Shuck does not disclose wherein the modulating comprises adjusting the wavelengths of the light sources according to a mapping of an angular part of light field to a stop-band of the notch-filter: First, these limitations are functions of the claimed structure and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). All of the structure of claim 1 has been meet, so there are no functional limitations that distinguish from the art.
Regarding the argument the Shuck does not disclose mapping of an angular part of light field to a stop-band of the filter: Polarization is based on angular parts of a light field so filters that function based on polarization can be considered mapping an angular part (polarization) of the light field. Therefore, given this claim adds no structure, polarization mapping and the filters involved in such (P0089) is enough to anticipate given the claim is purely functional and claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
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 1-7, 9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuck, III et al (US 2018/0231771 A1). Schuck teaches:
1/13/20/21. An optical waveguide arrangement (Figs. 10A-B, 13) or a method, comprising operating an optical waveguide arrangement or a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a set of computer readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (part of computer image display/projector, P0004-0008), cause an apparatus to at least: comprising:
comprising:
an optical system (1000) configured to generate a configurable image encoded in a light field (Fig. 10A-B);
optical waveguides (1310, 1320, 1330), arranged to receive light from the light field (P0115) and to convey the light to plural locations in the optical waveguides (1310, 1320, 1330) for release, generating a waveguide-based display (eyepiece),
the optical system comprises a light source with wavelength λ1 (R, G, B), wherein
the optical waveguides (1310, 1320, 1330), comprises a notch filter (1324, 1334, 1336) element with a stop-band at wavelength λ1’ (R, G or B) (P0116-0118), disposed on an outer surface of the optical waveguides (1310, 1320, 1330) to prevent leakage of light from the light field (light is guided into waveguides, not leaked), wherein the stop-band at wavelength λ1’ filters light of wavelength λ1 incident on the notch filter element at a first angle of incidence (P0115-0118),
wherein the optical waveguide arrangement (Figs. 10A-B, 13) is configured to modulate the wavelength of the light source (via 1030 and the waveguides with the filters and gratings) based on an angle of incidence of the light to the waveguide (1310, 1320, 1330) (P0099, 0106-0108, 0115-0118).
2/14. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 1/13, wherein the optical system (1000) further comprises a light source with wavelength λ2 (other of R, G or B from λ1), and wherein the notch filter element (1324, 1334, 1336) further has a stop-band at wavelength λ2', wherein the stop-band at wavelength λ2' filters light of wavelengths λ2, incident on the notch filter element (1324, 1334, 1336) at the first, or a second, angle of incidence (P0115-0118).
3/15. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 2/14, wherein the optical system (1000) further comprises a light source with wavelength λ3 (other of R, G or B from λ1 and λ2), and wherein the notch filter element (1324, 1334, 1336) has a stop-band at wavelength λ3', wherein the stop-band at wavelength λ3' filters light of wavelength λ3, incident on the notch filter element (1324, 1334, 1336)at the first angle, the second angle, or a third angle of incidence (P0115-0118).
4/16. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 1/13, wherein the modulating (at SLM 1030) comprises adjusting the wavelengths of the light sources according to a mapping of an angular part of light field (spatial light modulating, P0089) to a stop-band of the notch-filter (1324, 1334, 1336).
5/17. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 2/14, wherein the light sources comprise laser light sources (P0099).
6/18. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 2/14, wherein the light sources comprise light emitting diode light sources (P0067, 0073).
7/19. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 1/13, wherein the optical waveguide arrangement is configured to provide the display as a head-mounted display (P0004-0005).
9/11. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 1/2, wherein the notch filters are reflective notch filters (P0119).
12. The optical waveguide arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the notch filter (1336) element is configured with more than one stop-band (stops Blue & Green) for each light source in the optical waveguide arrangement (P0118).
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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuck as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Schowengerdt et al (US 2018/0239147 A1).
Schuck teaches the optical waveguide arrangement previously discussed.
Schuck does not teach expressly the notch filter stopband having a width of at most 2 nm.
Schowengerdt teaches an optical waveguide arrangement (Figs. 10A-B) wherein notch filters with a stopband width of 0.1 to 2 nm may be used on a side of the waveguide (P0169).
Schuck and Schowengerdt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical waveguide arrangements.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filters taught by Schuck to include notch filters with a stopband of 2 nm or less as taught by Schowengerdt.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow most visible wavelengths of light to pass (Schowengerdt, P0169).
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 RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights