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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1–14, in the reply filed on June 11, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter is not independent and distinct and that different classifications are not adequate grounds for restriction based on historical practice. This is not found persuasive because this application is a 371 National Stage application, and are restrictable under the unity of invention standard, as set forth in the April 13, 2026, Office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being nonelected, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0086135 to Takeyama in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0010465 to Martinez et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Takeyama discloses (e.g., focusing on Figs. 11-13 and their description) a device comprising: a microdisplay 5; a curved lightguide 3 configured to receive display light from the microdisplay and to transmit the display light from a proximal end of the curved lightguide to a distal end of the curved lightguide (Fig. 11); an incoupler 8 configured to direct light from the microdisplay into the curved lightguide (e.g., paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0147], hologram element 8 causes total reflection), wherein the incoupler is thicker than the curved lightguide (Fig. 11; also light guide is described as "thin"); and an outcoupler 9 disposed at the distal end of the curved lightguide (Fig. 11), the outcoupler configured to direct a portion of the display light out of the curved lightguide toward a user's eye (e.g., Fig. 11; paragraphs [0073], [0080], and [0148]), wherein the outcoupler is disposed at an angle with respect to the curved lightguide (Fig. 11).
Takeyama does not explicitly disclose that the angled outcoupler is to receive two interactions of the display light at a world-side of the outcoupler (though such would likely have been inherent in the design, for example, an interaction at surface 3-1 and another interaction at the back side of HOE 9 so as to disrupt the total internal reflection, even if not explicitly stated by Takeyama).
Martinez discloses eyeglasses with a microdisplay expanded into a user's field of view, similar to Takeyama, and Martinez teaches that at the outcoupler 475/480, there may be multiple interactions of the display light at a world-side of the outcoupler in order to expand the eyebox (paragraph [0032] and Fig. 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Takeyama such that the angled outcoupler is to receive two interactions of the display light at a world-side of the outcoupler, as suggested by Martinez, in order to further expand the eyebox.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Takeyama and Martinez would have rendered obvious a frame to carry a lens (frame 11; lens portion 3; Fig. 12 of Takeyama), wherein at least a portion of the curved lightguide and a first portion of the incoupler are disposed within the lens and a second portion of the incoupler is disposed within the frame (Fig. 13 of Takayama).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Takeyama and Martinez would have rendered obvious wherein the lens is coated with at least one of a polarizing coating and a light absorbing coating (where such coatings would have been obvious for lenses, such as to reduce glare or protect from sunlight).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Takeyama (e.g., focusing on Figs. 11-13 and their description) and Martinez (e.g., paragraph [0032] and Fig. 4D) would have rendered obvious a method comprising: directing light received at an incoupler from a microdisplay into a curved lightguide disposed within a lens, wherein the incoupler is thicker than the curved lightguide (Figs. 11-13 of Takeyama; also see rejection of Claim 1 above); receiving the light at the curved lightguide and transmitting the light from a proximal end of the curved lightguide to a distal end of the curved lightguide (Figs. 11-13 of Takeyama; also see rejection of Claim 1 above); and directing a portion of the light at an outcoupler disposed at the distal end of the curved lightguide out of the curved lightguide toward a user's eye (Figs. 11-13 of Takeyama; also see rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the outcoupler is disposed at an angle with respect to the curved lightguide to receive two interactions of the light at a world-side of the outcoupler (Figs. 11-13 of Takeyama; paragraph [0032] and Fig. 4D of Martinez; also see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Takeyama and Martinez would have rendered obvious wherein the lens is coated with at least one of a polarizing coating and a light absorbing coating (where such coatings would have been obvious for lenses, such as to reduce glare or protect from sunlight).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama and Martinez, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0341739 to Cakmakci et al.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, the combination of Takeyama and Martinez do not explicitly disclose wherein the first portion of the incoupler has a spherical eye-side surface and the second portion of the incoupler has a non-spherical eye-side surface.
Cakmakci discloses eyeglasses with a microdisplay expanded into a user's field of view, similar to Takeyama and Martinez, and Cakmakci teaches portions of the incoupler having spherical and non-spherical portions in order to account for astigmatism at the combiner surface (e.g., paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device/method of Takeyama and Martinez such that the first portion of the incoupler has a spherical eye-side surface and the second portion of the incoupler has a non-spherical eye-side surface, as suggested by Cakmakci, in order to account for astigmatism at the combiner surface.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama and Martinez, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0363870 to Cakmakci et al. (Cakmakci_2) and Cakmakci.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Takeyama and Martinez does not explicitly disclose a half-wave plate to receive display light transmitted through the curved lightguide; and a dielectric mirror disposed on at least one of the outcoupler and an eye-side surface of the curved lightguide.
Cakmakci_2 discloses eyeglasses with a microdisplay expanded into a user's field of view, similar to Takeyama and Martinez, and Cakmakci_2 teaches a half-wave plate 910 to receive display light transmitted through the curved lightguide (e.g., Fig. 9A) to reduce asymmetries in birefringence (paragraph [0075]).
Cakmakci teaches that a dielectric mirror may be used as a combiner at the outcoupler (e.g., paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Takayama and Martinez to include a half-wave plate to receive display light transmitted through the curved lightguide, as suggested by Cakmakci_2, in order to reduce asymmetries in birefringence; and also to include a dielectric mirror disposed on at least one of the outcoupler and an eye-side surface of the curved lightguide, as suggested by Cakmakci, to act as a combiner for integrating the projected image with real images.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, these claims recite a method tracking Claim 6, and would have been obvious in view of Takeyama, Martinez, Cakmakci_2, and Cakmakci as discussed above with respect to Claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 10, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights