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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 17 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2016/0327789 A1 to Klug et al. ("US1") have been fully considered and are persuasive (see Remarks at pages 6-7).
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2021/0208407 A1 to Eash et al. (“US2”), please see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 each recite the limitation "the at least three lights". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This appears to be a minor oversight in adjusting the claim language to reflect the amendment to independent Claims 1 and 9. For examination purposes, Claims 6-7 and 14-15 shall be considered to refer to "the at least four lights".
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2.
Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes an optical waveguide arrangement (see Figs 2, 10, 12) comprising:
an optical system (260, see [0046]-[0048]) configured to generate a configurable image encoded in a light field;
at least one optical waveguide (1010, 1020, 1210, 1220), arranged to receive light from the light field and to convey the light to plural locations in the optical waveguide for release, generating a waveguide-based display (see [0045]-[0048], [0080], [0084]), wherein
the optical system comprises a set of at least four light sources (1030, 1040, 1230, 1240, see [0032]-[0033]), each one of the light sources being configured to generate light of a distinct spectral characteristic in visible spectrum, and wherein the optical system is configured to generate a same colour (green) in two angular aspects of the light field using two different weighted combinations of the same light sources of the set (see [0080]-[0082], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 3, US2 describes the optical system comprising at least four light sources, wherein the optical system is configured to generate a full colour image encoded in the light field (see [0032]-[0033], [0080], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 4, US2 describes the generating of each distinct spectral characteristic comprising generating a light output with at least one distinct spectral peak (inherent to the production the specific-colored light, see [0032]-[0033], [0080], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes the configurable image comprising a moving image (see [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, US2 describes the at least four light sources comprising laser light sources (see [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7, US2 describes the at least four light sources comprising light emitting diode light sources (see [0032]).
Regarding Claim 8, US2 describes the optical waveguide arrangement configured to provide the waveguide-based display as a head-mounted display (see [0002], [0031], [0047]).
Claims 9 and 11-16 describe a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claims 1 and 3-8. Therefore, Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected in view of US2 for substantially the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, US1 describes an apparatus (see Figs 2, 10, 12). The further limitations of Claim 17 describe a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 18, US1 describes a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a set of computer readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the apparatus of claim 17 to at least perform the method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 1 (see [0086]-[0088]). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected in view of US1 for substantially the reasoning relied upon with regard to Claims 1 and 17.
Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes a computer program configured to cause the method in accordance with Claim 9, and substantially embodied by the device of Claim 1, to be performed (see [0086]-[0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights