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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, claims 1-13 and 16-22 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 16, 19 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
All the phases such as “(DG1)” and more in claim 1 should be deleted;
“the eye-pupil expander” in claims 3 and 16 should be “the first eye-pupil expander”;
Claim 4 should be depended on claim 3 instead of claim 1 because claim 3 cited eight diffraction grating;
“a waveguide apparatus of claim 1” of claim 11 should be “the apparatus of claim 1”;
“an apparatus of claim 1” of claim 13 should be “the apparatus of claim 1”;
Claim 19 should be depended on claim 2 instead of claim 18, otherwise there will be a new matter issue; and
“a waveguide apparatus of claim 1” of claim 22 should be “the apparatus of claim 1”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Travers US 20140300966.
Regarding claim 1, Travers discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.1-4, comprising:
a waveguide (12) having an in-coupler (122), an out-coupler (124), and at least a first eye-pupil expander (126) along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see fig.4), wherein:
the in-coupler comprises a first diffraction grating (168) and a second diffraction grating (170) overlaying the first diffraction grating, wherein grating lines of the first and second diffraction gratings are parallel to one another (see fig.4);
the first eye-pupil expander comprises a third diffraction grating (190) and a fourth diffraction grating (192) overlaying the third diffraction grating (see fig.4); and
the out-coupler comprises a fifth diffraction grating (180) and a sixth diffraction grating (178) overlaying the fifth diffraction grating (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 2, Travers discloses the first, third and fifth diffraction gratings provide a first optical path for display of a first portion of a vertical field of view (see fig.4 and para.53-55) and the second, fourth, and sixth diffraction gratings provide a second optical path for a second portion of the vertical field of view (see fig.4 and para.53-55).
Regarding claim 3, Travers discloses the first eye-pupil expander further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings (para.53 discloses “The angularly related beams corresponding to the field angles of a virtual image can be divided into three or more sub-ranges for sequential propagation into and out of the waveguide 12 by adding more controllable diffractive components that are assembled in a similar manner, such as by forming additional overlapping layers of the waveguide 12”, para.55 discloses “for the sake of simplicity, only two layers of diffractive components are shown here” in fig.4, so that the first eye-pupil expander can further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating or even more layers of diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings).
Regarding claim 4, Travers discloses the out-coupler further comprises a ninth diffraction grating and a tenth diffraction grating, the ninth and tenth diffraction gratings overlaying the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings (para.53 discloses “The angularly related beams corresponding to the field angles of a virtual image can be divided into three or more sub-ranges for sequential propagation into and out of the waveguide 12 by adding more controllable diffractive components that are assembled in a similar manner, such as by forming additional overlapping layers of the waveguide 12”, para.55 discloses “for the sake of simplicity, only two layers of diffractive components are shown here” in fig.4, so that the out-coupler can further comprises a ninth diffraction grating and a tenth diffraction grating or even more layers of diffraction grating, the ninth and tenth diffraction gratings overlaying the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings).
Regarding claim 8, Travers discloses grating lines of the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings are parallel to one another (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 11, Travers discloses a full-color waveguide display device, in at least figs.1-5, 7, 8 and 10-13 and para.70, comprising the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Travers discloses the display device includes an image generator (22) and the in-coupler is configured to couple an image generated by the image generator (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 13, Travers discloses a method of operating the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), comprising: generating an image (see fig.4); in-coupling the image with the in-coupler (see fig.4); and out-coupling the image with the out-coupler (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 16, Travers discloses the first eye-pupil expander further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings (para.53 discloses “The angularly related beams corresponding to the field angles of a virtual image can be divided into three or more sub-ranges for sequential propagation into and out of the waveguide 12 by adding more controllable diffractive components that are assembled in a similar manner, such as by forming additional overlapping layers of the waveguide 12”, para.55 discloses “for the sake of simplicity, only two layers of diffractive components are shown here” in fig.4, so that the first eye-pupil expander can further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating or even more layers of diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings).
Regarding claim 17, Travers discloses the first eye-pupil expander further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings (para.53 discloses “The angularly related beams corresponding to the field angles of a virtual image can be divided into three or more sub-ranges for sequential propagation into and out of the waveguide 12 by adding more controllable diffractive components that are assembled in a similar manner, such as by forming additional overlapping layers of the waveguide 12”, para.55 discloses “for the sake of simplicity, only two layers of diffractive components are shown here” in fig.4, so that the first eye-pupil expander can further comprises a seventh diffraction grating and an eighth diffraction grating or even more layers of diffraction grating, the seventh and eighth diffraction gratings overlaying the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the out-coupler can further comprises a ninth diffraction grating and a tenth diffraction grating or even more layers of diffraction grating, the ninth and tenth diffraction gratings overlaying the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings).
Regarding claim 21, Travers discloses grating lines of the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings are parallel to one another (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 22, Travers discloses an augmented reality headset device (para.75) comprising the apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz US 20200278543.
Regarding claim 5, Travers does not explicitly disclose at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings.
Schultz discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.3A-10, at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings (110R and 110BG), the third and fourth diffraction gratings (TGR and RGBG), and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings (120R and 120BG)(see figs.3A-10) for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk (para.8 and 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings as taught by Schultz in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk.
Regarding claim 7, Travers discloses the third and fourth diffraction gratings are different (para.55 and fig.4).
Travers does not explicitly disclose grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings are not parallel to one another.
Schultz discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.3A-10, grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings (TGR and RGBG) are not parallel to one another (see fig.3A-3B, 5, 6 and 10) for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk (para.8 and 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings are not parallel to one another as taught by Schultz in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen WO 2019136166A1 (provided in IDS filed on 4/12/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Travers discloses at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings within the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings (see figs.2 and 3).
Travers does not explicitly disclose at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings forms a metagrating.
Chen discloses an apparatus, in at least para4, using metagratings instead of diffractive gratings for the purpose increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image (para.4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have using metagratings instead of diffractive gratings as taught by Chen in the apparatus of Travers in order to have at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings forms a metagrating for the purpose of increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image.
Regarding claim 9, Travers discloses the first, third and fifth diffraction gratings provide a first optical path for display of a first portion of a vertical field of view (see fig.4 and para.53-55) and the second, fourth, and sixth diffraction gratings provide a second optical path for a second portion of the vertical field of view (see fig.4 and para.53-55).
Travers does not explicitly disclose the first and third diffraction gratings are configured to diffract light having a first polarization state and the second and fourth diffraction gratings are configured to diffract light having a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state.
Chen discloses an apparatus, in at least para4, encoding the left and right half of FOV in orthogonal polarization channels for the purpose increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image (para.4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have encoding the left and right half of FOV in orthogonal polarization channels as taught by Chen in the apparatus of Travers in order to have the first and third diffraction gratings are configured to diffract light having a first polarization state and the second and fourth diffraction gratings are configured to diffract light having a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state for the purpose of increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SHRAMKOVA WO 2021191132A1 (provided in IDS filed on 4/12/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Travers does not explicitly disclose further comprising a second eye-pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander.
SHRAMKOVA discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.1B and 1C and 27, further comprising a second eye-pupil expander (166a) along a second optical path from the in-coupler (162a) to the out-coupler (166a), the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander (164a)(fig.1C) for the purpose of forming a binocular waveguide display with light from different portions of an image may be coupled by the in-couplers to different directions within the waveguides (para.115).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further comprising a second eye-pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander as taught by SHRAMKOVA in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of forming a binocular waveguide display with light from different portions of an image may be coupled by the in-couplers to different directions within the waveguides.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olkkonen US 2020/0142109.
Regarding claim 10, Travers does not explicitly disclose further comprising a second eye-pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander.
Olkkonen discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.1 and 2, further comprising a second eye-pupil expander (24) along a second optical path from the in-coupler (22) to the out-coupler (25), the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander (23) for the purpose of enabling more compact design for a NED device with a large FOV (para.37).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further comprising a second eye-pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the second eye-pupil expander being arranged symmetrically with respect to the first eye-pupil expander as taught by Olkkonen in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of enabling more compact design for a NED device with a large FOV.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schultz US 20200278543.
Regarding claim 18, Travers does not explicitly disclose at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings.
Schultz discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.3A-10, at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings (110R and 110BG), the third and fourth diffraction gratings (TGR and RGBG), and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings (120R and 120BG)(see figs.3A-10) for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk (para.8 and 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings are on opposite surfaces of the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings as taught by Schultz in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk.
Regarding claim 20, Travers discloses the third and fourth diffraction gratings are different (para.55 and fig.4).
Travers does not explicitly disclose grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings are not parallel to one another.
Schultz discloses an apparatus, in at least figs.3A-10, grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings (TGR and RGBG) are not parallel to one another (see fig.3A-3B, 5, 6 and 10) for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk (para.8 and 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have grating lines of the third and fourth diffraction gratings are not parallel to one another as taught by Schultz in the apparatus of Travers for the purpose of providing an improved double-sided beam expander capable of handling two color channels within a single thickness of substrate and reducing color channel crosstalk.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travers US 20140300966 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen WO 2019136166A1.
Regarding claim 19, Travers discloses at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings within the waveguide: the first and second diffraction gratings, the third and fourth diffraction gratings, and the fifth and sixth diffraction gratings (see figs.2 and 3).
Travers does not explicitly disclose at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings forms a metagrating.
Chen discloses an apparatus, in at least para4, using metagratings instead of diffractive gratings for the purpose increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image (para.4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have using metagratings instead of diffractive gratings as taught by Chen in the apparatus of Travers in order to have at least one of the following pairs of diffraction gratings forms a metagrating for the purpose of increasing field of view (FOV) of the displayed image.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights