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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on May 21, 2024, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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) 1, 2, 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Schultz et al (US 2022/0075195 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by DeLapp et al (US 2020/0166756 A1).
Schultz et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an optical imaging light guide (20, Figures 1, 4A, 4B , 5A and 5B) serves as the waveguide device for generating an eyebox (please see paragraph [0025]) of a display, the waveguide device is comprised of a first diffraction grating (24) configured to selectively diffract incident light (WI) according to a wavelength and/or an angle of incidence on the first diffraction grating to incouple the diffracted incident light into the waveguide device, one or more second diffraction grating (26) configured to selectively diffract the incoupled light according to a wavelength and/or an angle of incidence to direct the incoupled light through the waveguide device and one or more third diffraction grating (28) configured to selectively diffract the light propagating in the waveguide device according a wavelength and/or an angle of incidence to outcouple said propagating light beam, wherein collectively each beam of the outcoupled light (WO) generates the eyebox, (please Figure 1).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims with exception that it does not teach that the first, second and third diffraction gratings are each of a volume phase holographic grating (VPH). DeLapp et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of input coupler (114, Figure 7) and output coupler (120) wherein each of the coupler comprises volume phase holographic grating (please see paragraph [0042]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of DeLapp et al to make each diffraction grating a volume phase holographic grating for the benefit of making each diffraction grating with high diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claim 2, DeLaap et al teaches that the volume phase holographic grating implicitly comprise Bragg grating, (please see paragraph [0023]), wherein the Bragg selectivity of the first, second and third volume phase holographic gratings determines a size of generated eyebox, (please see Figure 7).
With regard to claim 5, Schultz et al in light of DeLaap et al teach that a wavelength and/or angle selectivity of the first, second and third volume phase holographic grating provides a single optical path through the waveguide device for each wavelength and/or angle of incidence of a beam on the first volume phase holographic grating.
With regard to claim 6, DeLaap et al teaches the volume phase holographic grating comprises linear volume phase holographic grating (please see Figures 4 and 6).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, DeLaap et al teaches that the volume phase holographic grating may comprise more than one gratings multiplexed together, (please see Figures 9-11).
With regard to claim 9, DeLaap et al teaches that the waveguide device defines a plurality of exit pupils that each for an eye, (please see Figures 2 and 3) wherein each pupil exit associated with a second and a corresponding third volume phase holographic gratings (124 and 120, Figure 3).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, DeLaap et al teaches that the waveguide device may comprise a plurality of sets of first second and/or third volume phase holographic gratings (164, 166 and 168, please see Figure 7) that each set of the volume phase holographic gratings that are in tiled arrangement (with regard to claim 11) in the waveguide device for different field of view or different angle of incidence of the incident light.
With regard to claim 12, DeLaap et al teaches that the pitch and/or pitch orientation of the first, second and/or third volume phase holographic gratings in each set of the tiled arrangement are different, (please see Figures 6 and 7).
With regard to claim 13, DeLaap et al teaches that the pitch and pitch orientations defines a k-vector of each of the first, second and/or third volume phase holographic grating, (please see Figure 6). It is noted that k-vector is defined as the perpendicular vector with respect to the orientation of the fringe lines for each of the volume phase holographic grating. Schultz et al teaches that the summation of k-vectors for each set of the first, second and third diffraction grating, i.e. vector summation of k0, k1 and k2 (Figure 1) is zero. The summation of the k-vectors for the first, second and third volume phase holographic gratings for each set of DeLaap et al may also be made to be zero.
With regard to claim 14, DeLaap et al teaches in light of Figure 5 and paragraph [0048] that the different volume phase holographic grating of different set of the gratings may be designed to selectively diffract incident light of a different wavelength or wavelength band.
With regard to claim 15, DeLaap et al teaches that the plurality sets of the volume phase holographic gratings (148-1, 148-2 and 148-3, Figure 9) may also be provided in stacked layers in the waveguide device, (please see Figure 9).
With regard to claim 16, DeLaap et al teaches that alternatively that plurality sets of the volume phase holographic gratings (164, 166, and 168, Figure 10) may also be multiplexed in the same layer of a stack, (please see Figure 10).
With regard to claims 17 and 18, Schultz et al in light of DeLaap et al teach that the first, second and third volume phase holographic gratings (114, 124, and 120, Figure 3) may be arranged at a first surface of the waveguide surface. Although these references do not teach that they are laminated on the first surface of the waveguide device, such modification is considered obvious to one skilled in the art since using lamination method to arrange layer on surface of waveguide or substrate is well known method in the art. It is noted that product-by-process limitation is not given patentable wight since the process does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2113).
With regard to claim 19, DeLaap et al teaches an optical system for head-up display, (please see paragraph [0021]) wherein the optical system comprises an image projector (100, Figure 3) to project an image towards an eye of a user and a combiner element comprising the waveguide device (84) positioned in a field of view of the user and in an optical path between the image projector and the eye of the user(90, Figure 3).
With regard to claim 20, DeLaap et al teaches that the first, second and third volume phase holographic gratings (114, 124 and 120, please see paragraph [0040]) are laminated or formed on a surface of the combiner element facing away from the user.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al and DeLaap et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Purvis et al (US 2021/0155584 A1).
The waveguide device taught by Schultz et al in combination with the teachings of DeLaap et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations.
With regard to claims 3, DeLaap et al teaches that the volume phase holographic grating implicitly comprise Bragg grating, (please see paragraph [0023]), wherein the art well-known Bragg condition determines the diffraction efficiency and therefore the selectivity of the Bragg grating. These references however do not teach explicitly that the Bragg selectivity is determined by a thickness of the grating material and/or by an exposure saturation of the grating material. It is known in the art that a Bragg grating is characterized by a Q factor defined as ((2pl0d)/(n0L)), as explicitly demonstrated by Purvis et al, wherein the l0 is wavelength, d is the thickness of the material, n0 is refractive index of the material and L is grating constant, (please see paragraphs [0026]. [0035] and [0036]). Purvis et al also teaches that Bragg grating are achieved if Q assumes value much greater than 1 or even 10, (please see paragraph [0036]). This means the Bragg selectivity is determined by the thickness, d, of the material and exposure of the material, since the exposure of the material would affect the refractive index of the material, (please see paragraph [0151]).
In light of the teachings of Purvis et al it is implicitly or obviously true that the Bragg selectivity or the Bragg condition may be determined by the thickness and/or exposure of the material of the grating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872