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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IIB invention (figure 3), including claims 1-2 and 6-10, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 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 1-2, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelan et al. (US 2021/0382308) in view of Schowengendt et al. (US 2018/0275415).
Regarding claim 1, Phelan et al. (figure 5) discloses an optical assembly for use in an augmented reality or virtual reality display, comprising:
a waveguide (52);
at least one projector (see at least abstract);
an input diffractive optical structure configured to receive light from the at least one projector and couple the received light into the waveguide (54; see at least abstract); and
an output diffractive optical structure (62, 64) configured to receive light from the input diffractive optical structure in an input direction, wherein the output diffractive optical structure comprises at least a first diffractive optical element and a second diffractive optical element with different respective diffraction efficiencies, wherein the first diffractive optical element has a relatively high diffraction efficiency and the second diffractive optical element has a relatively low diffraction efficiency and the first and second diffractive optical elements are overlaid on one another in or on the waveguide, wherein the first diffractive optical element is configured to receive light along the input direction and couple it towards the second diffractive optical element which can then act as an output diffractive optical element, providing outcoupled orders towards a viewer, and wherein the second diffractive optical element is configured to receive light along the input direction and couple it towards the first diffractive optical element which can then act as an output diffractive optical element, providing outcoupled orders towards a viewer (the first diffractive element, which has the higher diffraction efficiency, is preferentially arranged to couple rays out of the waveguide 52 and towards a viewer along the z-axis; the second portion 64 of the output element 60 is effectively a mirror image of the first portion 62, reflected about the y-axis. Therefore, opposite diffractive interactions occur within the second portion 64 in comparison to the first portion 62; see at least paragraphs 0039-0040);
wherein the output diffractive optical structure comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein in the first portion the first diffractive optical element is configured to couple light from the input direction towards the second portion and wherein the second diffractive optical element is configured to couple light from the input direction away from the second portion, and in the second portion the first diffractive optical element is configured to couple light from the input direction towards the first portion and wherein the second diffractive optical element is configured to couple light from the input direction away from the first portion (the first diffractive element, which has the higher diffraction efficiency, is preferentially arranged to couple rays out of the waveguide 52 and towards a viewer along the z-axis; the second portion 64 of the output element 60 is effectively a mirror image of the first portion 62, reflected about the y-axis. Therefore, opposite diffractive interactions occur within the second portion 64 in comparison to the first portion 62; see at least paragraphs 0039-0040).
Phelan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Phelan et al. is silent regarding the at least one projector is configured to provide at least two input pupils of light, including a first pupil and a second pupil. Schowengendt et al. (figures 1-3d) teaches
wherein the at least one projector is configured to provide at least two input pupils of light, including a first pupil and a second pupil, which are coupled toward the output diffractive optical structure by the input diffractive optical structure substantially in parallel along the input direction at displaced positions from one another so that they are received respectively at the first portion and the second portion of the output diffractive optical structure (316-1 and 316-3);
wherein there is a dividing line between the first portion and the second portion of the output diffractive optical structure (the line between 316-1 and 316-3);
wherein the first pupil has a first cone angle when coupled toward the output diffractive optical structure by the input diffractive optical structure, wherein the cone angle extends only in the first portion to provide a field of view for illuminating only the first portion and does not intersect the dividing line; and
wherein the second pupil has a second cone angle when coupled toward the output diffractive optical structure by the input diffractive optical structure, wherein the second cone angle extends only in the second portion and does not intersect the dividing line (toward 312-1 and 312-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input pupils of light as taught by Schowengendt et al. in order to increase the apparent field of view for the user of the wearable display.
Regarding claim 2, Schowengendt et al. (figures 1-3d) teaches wherein there is a dividing line between the first and second portions of the output diffractive optical structure, and wherein the centre of the first pupil is received at the first portion at a first distance from the dividing line and the second pupil is received at the second portion at a second distance from the dividing line, and wherein the first and second distance are substantially equal to one another (the line between 316-1 and 316-3).
Regarding claim 6, Schowengendt et al. (figures 1-3d) teaches wherein the two input pupils from the two input pupils from the projector are non-overlapping with one another (316-1 and 316-3).
Regarding claim 7, Schowengendt et al. (figures 1-3d) teaches a single projector (302) configured to generate the two input pupils.
Regarding claim 10, Phelan et al. (figure 5) discloses wherein the first diffractive optical element has a stepped profile (figure 5).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelan et al. (US 2021/0382308) in view of Schowengendt et al. (US 2018/0275415); further in view of Klug et al. (US 2016/0327789).
Regarding claim 8, Phelan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Phelan et al. is silent regarding two projectors which generate the two input pupils. Klug et al. (figures 1-5) teaches two projectors which generate the two input pupils (1090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projector as taught by Klug et al. in order to increase the field of view of optics.
Regarding claim 9, Phelan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Phelan et al. is silent regarding wherein the first diffractive optical element is blazed or pseudo blazed. Klug et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the first diffractive optical element is blazed or pseudo blazed (see at least paragraph 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element as taught by Klug et al. in order to increase the field of view of optics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights