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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claim 1-5 and 7-21 are now pending in the application. Claim 6 has been canceled and new claim 21 had been added by the Applicant (and contrary to Remarks, page6). Previous objection to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancelation of claim 6.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application a National Stage entry of PCT/FI2023/050015 , International Filing Date: 01/05/2023 that claims foreign priority to FI 20225058, filed 01/25/2022 (Finland).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/12/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections/Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 are objected and interpreted to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and it’s dependent claims recite limitations regarding waveguide with in-coupling, pupil expansion and out-coupling diffraction grating structures that couple input beams into the waveguide as in-coupled beams, then diffract in-coupled beams into guided beams, which then as diffracted/guided beams are out-coupled as output beams, in terms of e.g. a first/second set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a first/second different domain in k-space in an annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide,
receiving beams in a first/second plurality of directions in k-space to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first/second set of three domains within the annular guided propagation domain including the first domain and
outcoupling associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the first/second set of three domains, as first/second diffracted set of beams from the waveguide as a set of output beams. However, this description of a wave propagation of beam(s) using k-vectors in k-space or reciprocal space is just Fourier transform of a spatial function that is represented at spatial frequencies or wavevectors of plane waves of the Fourier transform, where spatial function of the wave here is in spatial domain or real space. Therefore the above k-space descriptions will be associated with real physical structures of the waveguide, diffraction structures and wave/beams propagation in/out of the structures, with different parts of image information, e.g. special parts, different wavelengths, color, that are propagating through different parts and directions of the waveguide and associated with different k-vectors and domains in k-space. Specifically, as it is held that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. In addition Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite, In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP § 2173.05(g). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Appropriate correction is suggested if different meaning and interpretation of the above and related terms are sought.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites the limitations for “out-coupling structure configured to receive, from the exit pupil expansion structure, a first/second diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the first set of three domains” in lines 14-15, and similarly in lines 29-30. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear what beams is the out-coupling structure receiving, given that the claim recites above that the exit pupil expansion structure comprising a diffractive grating and configured … to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams in a first plurality of directions in k-space to form three sets of guided beams (e.g. 111 Fig. 1) associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first/second set of three domains, which are also the same first/second diffracted set of beams (111) received from out-coupling structure by the exit pupil expansion structure. Thus, it is unclear if the guided beams are the same or different beams from the first set of diffracted beams? Or if guided beams are beam received EPE structure before they are diffracted, i.e. as some or all of the 110 beams? For the purposes of examination the above limitations will be treated broadly, such that the received first/second diffracted set of beams can be the same or different set of beams from the guided beams.
It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claims 2-5 and 7-21 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhargava et al. (hereafter Bhargva, of record) US 20190187474 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) a display component (i.e. AR eyepiece waveguide, e.g. 1200,1300,1400,1500,1600 of wearable display system 60, 70,250 paragraphs [5-12,100-109,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17), comprising:
a waveguide (waveguide 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16);
an in-coupling structure (as input coupling grating ICG, e.g. 1440, 1540, 1640, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) configured to couple a set of input beams into the waveguide as a first set of in-coupled beams (e.g. input beams 1202a,04a,06a and equivalents into waveguide 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) associated with a first set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a first domain in k-space in an annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide (as ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide substrate as 1st set of guided beams associated with 1st set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, associated with waveguide, and corresponding to a region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K);
wherein the in-coupling structure comprises an in-coupling diffractive grating for coupling the set of input beams into the waveguide (input coupling grating ICG, e.g. 1440, 1540, 1640, coupling input beams e.g. 1202a,04a,06a into waveguide e.g. 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, see e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16);
an exit pupil expansion structure comprising a diffractive grating and configured to receive the first set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams (110) (i.e. orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, receiving and diffracting guided beams from ICC from one of G1, G-1, in k-space, and performing pupil expansion, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 14-17) in a first plurality of directions (directions of diffracted beams, see Figs. 14-17) in k-space to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first set of three domains within the annular guided propagation domain including the first domain (as OPE,MPE diffracts guided beams creating sets of k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17); and
an out-coupling structure configured to receive, from the exit pupil expansion structure (EPE e.g. 1460,1560 and equivalents), a first diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the first set of three domains, and to out-couple the first diffracted set of beams from the waveguide as a set of output beams (as EPE diffractive grating/features, e.g. 1460,1560,16601760 receiving diffracted beams from OPE/MPE associated with k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, out couple diffracted beams from the optically transmissive waveguide substrate as output beams, e.g. paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256,5-6,12], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17),
wherein:
the in-coupling structure is further configured to couple the set of input beams (901) into the waveguide as a second set of in-coupled beams associated with a second set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a second domain, different from the first domain, in k-space in the annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide (as ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide 2nd set of guided beams associated with 2nd set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain another one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, of waveguide, and corresponding to region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K);
the exit pupil expansion structure is further configured to receive the second set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the second set of in-coupled beams in a second plurality of directions in k-space (i.e. orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, receiving and diffracting guided beams from ICC from other of G1, G-1, in k-space, and performing pupil expansion, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 14-17) to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a second set of three domains, different from the first set of three domains, within the annular guided propagation domain including the second domain(as OPE,MPE diffracts guided beams, from other of G1,G-1, creating other sets of k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17)), and
the out-coupling structure (103) is further configured to receive, from the exit pupil expansion structure (102), a second diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the second set of three domains (205_1, 205_2, 205_3) and to out-couple the second diffracted set of beams from the waveguide (104) as the set of output beams (as EPE diffractive grating/features, e.g. 1460,1560,16601760 receiving other diffracted beams from OPE/MPE associated with k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, out couple diffracted beams from the optically transmissive waveguide substrate as output beams, e.g. paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256,5-6,12], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17).
Regarding claim 2, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the out-coupling structure (EPE) comprises an out-coupling diffractive grating for out-coupling the first and/or second diffracted set of beams from the waveguide (as EPE diffractive grating/features, e.g. 1460,1560,1660,1760 receiving both G1,G-1 guided and then diffracted beams from OPE/MPE associated with k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, out couple diffracted beams from the optically transmissive waveguide substrate as output beams, e.g. paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256,5-6,12], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the exit pupil expansion structure (OPE,MPE) is positioned on a first side of the waveguide (OPE,MPE e.g. is on top side of waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12, 14A-B) and the out-coupling structure EPE, corresponding to output exit pupil, 1210 of waveguide) is positioned on a second side of the waveguide (EPE e.g. corresponding to entrance pupil of 1200 is on bottom side of waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12, 14A-B), and wherein the out-coupling structure (EPE) comprises a one-dimensional diffractive grating (i.e. as EPE as one-dimensionally periodic grating, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169,185-200,396,397], e.g. Figs. 14A-B)
Regarding claim 7, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the exit pupil expansion structure (OPE/MPE) is configured to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams (guided beams from IGC) via zeroth order and first order diffractions (i.e. OPE,MPE diffracts through zero-order and 1st order diffractions, e.g. paragraphs [217-220,234-235,242,255,259-262]), to form the three sets of guided beams associated with the three sets of k-vectors lying in the first set of three domains (e.g. k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17).
Regarding claim 8, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the exit pupil expansion structure (OPE/MPE) is configured to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams via zeroth order and first order diffractions (i.e. OPE,MPE diffracts through zero-order and 1st order diffractions, e.g. paragraphs [217-220,234-235,242,255,259-262]) to only form the three sets of guided beams associated with the three sets of k-vectors (204_1, 204_2, 204_3) lying in the first set of three domains (to form k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the guided propagation domain (201) surrounds a coupling domain (as e.g. 1308a surrounds 1308b, as coupling domain, e.g. paragraphs [162-166,175-183,194], Figs. 13E,J,K, 14B) and wherein the first set of three domains forms a triangle, an equilateral triangle, or an isosceles triangle that at least partially overlaps with the coupling domain (e.g. as three domains in triangle, equilateral triangle form in k-space annulus, overlapping coupling region e.g. 1308b and equivalent, see paragraphs [175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9],e.g. see Figs. 16C-F, ).
Regarding claim 10, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) a display device comprising a display component according to claim 1 (as the AR eyepiece waveguide, e.g. 1200,1300,1400,1500,1600 is part of wearable display system 60, 70,250 paragraphs [5-12,100-109,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17).
Regarding claim 11, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) comprising a scanner-based optical engine, for directing the set of input beams to the in-coupling structure (i.e. as display system e.g. 250 includes scanning display with optical engine 520 and controller 560, paragraphs [5-12,100-109,112-114,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17).
Regarding claim 12, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the display device implemented as a see-through display device (as the AR eyepiece waveguide, e.g. 1200,1300,1400,1500,1600 is part of wearable display system 60, 70,250 as AR display system, see paragraphs [5-12,100-109,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17).
Regarding claims 13,14, and 15, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) that the display device implemented as a head-mounted display device (as the AR eyepiece waveguide, e.g. 1200,1300,1400,1500,1600 is part of wearable display system 60, 70,250 as head mounted AR display device, see paragraphs [5-12,100-109,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bhargava et al. (hereafter Bhargva, of record) US 20190187474 A1 in view of Curtis et al. (hereafter Curtis, of record) US 20200209459 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) the scanner-based optical engine (i.e. as display system e.g. 250 includes scanning display with optical engine 520 and controller 560, paragraphs [5-12,100-109,112-114,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17), but is silent that it is a laser-scanning optical engine.
However, Curtis teaches in the same field of invention (Figs. 1-3, 14-15, 20-28, paragraphs [4-22, 252-257, 271-273,293-300]) and further teaches that the scanner-based optical engine is a laser-scanning optical engine (as display system e.g. 250 includes scanning display with optical engine that includes laser light sources rather than LEDs, paragraphs [293-300]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and specify the scanner-based optical engine of Bhargava to include laser source for the laser-scanning optical engine according to teachings of Curtis, given that use of laser light sources is preferable to other light sources e.g. LEDs (see Curtis, paragraph [296]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bhargava et al. (hereafter Bhargva, of record) US 20190187474 A1 in view of Zheng (of record) US 20240094545 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17) the diffractive grating of the exit pupil expansion structure (i.e. orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, where at least grating structures 1650, 1750 show hexagonal like structural features, as depicted in Figs. 16B and 17A and related descriptions) but is not explicit that it comprises a hexagonal diffractive grating (however, it is noted that orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander grating structures 1650, 1750 show hexagonal like structural features, as depicted in Figs. 16B and 17A and disclosed in related descriptions).
However, Zheng teaches in the same field of invention of diffractive light waveguide apparatus, a near-eye display device (see Figs. 1, 29-32, title, abstract, paragraphs [02,05-07,82-87,122-124]) and further teaches that the diffractive grating of the exit pupil expansion structure comprises a hexagonal diffractive grating (i.e. as output coupled grating with the hexagonal lattice in the top projection mode, that provides three diffraction orders having an impact on human visual perception, i.e., a (1,1) level diffraction, a (1,0) level diffraction, and a (0,1) level diffraction, paragraphs [122-124], Fig. 29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander diffractive grating/features of Bhargava according to teachings of Zheng to have hexagonal lattice grating structure in order to provide three diffraction orders having an impact on human visual perception, as (1,1) level diffraction, a (1,0) level diffraction, and a (0,1) level diffraction (see Zheng, paragraphs [122-124]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. Claims 4, 18 and 20 depend on claim 3 and are therefore also objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Bhargava does not disclose claim 1 recited features that (1) “"an exit pupil expansion structure comprising a diffractive grating and configured to receive the first set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the first set of in- coupled beams in a first plurality of directions in k-space to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first set of three domains within the annular guided propagation domain including the first domain," as Bhargava's multi-directional pupil expander (MPE) regions diffract into beams to eight possible new k-space locations not three domains as required by claim, and "the in-coupling structure is further configured to couple the set of input beams into the waveguide as a second set of in-coupled beams associated with a second set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a second domain, different from the first domain", as Bhargava's ICG region 1640 couples input beams into a single propagation direction, not into two different domains. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, as noted in the claims objection/interpretation section above, the claim limitations regarding beam propagation in waveguide with diffractive in-coupling, pupil expanding and out-coupling structures are treated to the extent of the recited structures.
Specifically as noted the recited description of a wave propagation of beam(s) using k-vectors in k-space or reciprocal space is just Fourier transform of a spatial function that is represented at spatial frequencies or wavevectors of plane waves of the Fourier transform, where spatial function of the wave here is in spatial domain or real space. Therefore the above k-space descriptions will be associated with real physical structures of the waveguide, diffraction structures and wave/beams propagation in/out of the structures, with different parts of image information, e.g. special parts, different wavelengths, color, that are propagating through different parts and directions of the waveguide and associated with different k-vectors and domains in k-space. Moreover, as it is held that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Moreover, as noted above, notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite, In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP § 2173.05(g). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Hence the functional claim limitations were treated broadly, to the extent of recited structures, and analogous structures were found and associated in the prior art of Bhargava. With respect to the above issue (1) as noted in the rejections above, the cited prior art of Bhargava teaches all limitations of claim 1, as Bhargava teaches (see e.g. Figs. 1-17)
a display component (i.e. AR eyepiece waveguide, e.g. 1200,1300,1400,1500,1600 of wearable display system 60, 70,250 paragraphs [5-12,100-109,150-156, 158-169, 175-183, 185-200], e.g. Figs. 2, 6, 10, 13-17), comprising:
a waveguide (waveguide 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16);
an in-coupling structure (as input coupling grating ICG, e.g. 1440, 1540, 1640, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) configured to couple a set of input beams into the waveguide as a first set of in-coupled beams (e.g. input beams 1202a,04a,06a and equivalents into waveguide 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) associated with a first set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a first domain in k-space in an annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide (as ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide substrate as 1st set of guided beams associated with 1st set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, associated with waveguide, and corresponding to a region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K);
wherein the in-coupling structure comprises an in-coupling diffractive grating for coupling the set of input beams into the waveguide (input coupling grating ICG, e.g. 1440, 1540, 1640, coupling input beams e.g. 1202a,04a,06a into waveguide e.g. 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, see e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16);
an exit pupil expansion structure comprising a diffractive grating and configured to receive the first set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams (110) (i.e. orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, receiving and diffracting guided beams from ICC from one of G1, G-1, in k-space, and performing pupil expansion, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 14-17) in a first plurality of directions (directions of diffracted beams, see Figs. 14-17) in k-space to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first set of three domains within the annular guided propagation domain including the first domain (as OPE,MPE diffracts guided beams creating sets of k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17); and
an out-coupling structure configured to receive, from the exit pupil expansion structure (EPE e.g. 1460,1560 and equivalents), a first diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the first set of three domains, and to out-couple the first diffracted set of beams from the waveguide as a set of output beams (as EPE diffractive grating/features, e.g. 1460,1560,16601760 receiving diffracted beams from OPE/MPE associated with k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, out couple diffracted beams from the optically transmissive waveguide substrate as output beams, e.g. paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256,5-6,12], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17),
wherein:
the in-coupling structure is further configured to couple the set of input beams (901) into the waveguide as a second set of in-coupled beams associated with a second set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a second domain, different from the first domain, in k-space in the annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide (as ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide 2nd set of guided beams associated with 2nd set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain another one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, of waveguide, and corresponding to region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K);
the exit pupil expansion structure is further configured to receive the second set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the second set of in-coupled beams in a second plurality of directions in k-space (i.e. orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, receiving and diffracting guided beams from ICC from other of G1, G-1, in k-space, and performing pupil expansion, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 14-17) to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a second set of three domains, different from the first set of three domains, within the annular guided propagation domain including the second domain(as OPE,MPE diffracts guided beams, from other of G1,G-1, creating other sets of k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17)), and
the out-coupling structure (103) is further configured to receive, from the exit pupil expansion structure (102), a second diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in at least one of the domains in the second set of three domains (205_1, 205_2, 205_3) and to out-couple the second diffracted set of beams from the waveguide (104) as the set of output beams (as EPE diffractive grating/features, e.g. 1460,1560,16601760 receiving other diffracted beams from OPE/MPE associated with k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, out couple diffracted beams from the optically transmissive waveguide substrate as output beams, e.g. paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256,5-6,12], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17).
Specifically, Bhargava teaches the in-coupling structure as input coupling grating ICG, e.g. 1440, 1540, 1640, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) configured to couple a set of input beams into the waveguide as a first set of in-coupled beams (e.g. input beams 1202a,04a,06a and equivalents into waveguide 1200,1350,1400,1500, 1600, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 12-16) associated with a first set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a first domain in k-space in an annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide (as ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide substrate as 1st set of guided beams associated with 1st set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, associated with waveguide, and corresponding to a region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K), and that the in-coupling structure is further configured to couple the set of input beams (901) into the waveguide as a second set of in-coupled beams associated with a second set of in-coupled k-vectors lying in a second domain, different from the first domain, in k-space in the annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide, as specifically, the ICG region receives and couples set of input beams into waveguide 2nd set of guided beams associated with 2nd set of k-vectors e.g. in domain or part of domain another one of G1, G-1, in k-space that lies in a k-space annulus e.g. 1310,1308a, of waveguide, and corresponding to region in k-space associated with guided propagation in the eyepiece waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-B,13K).
Bhargava further teaches the exit pupil expansion structure comprising a diffractive grating and configured to receive the first set of in-coupled beams and to diffract the first set of in-coupled beams (110) as orthogonal/multi-directional pupil expander (OPE,MPE), diffractive grating/features e.g. 1450,1550,1650,1750, receiving and diffracting guided beams from ICC from one of G1, G-1, in k-space, and performing pupil expansion, (e.g. paragraphs [150-156,158-169, 175-183,185-200], e.g. Figs. 14-17) in a first plurality of directions (directions of diffracted beams, see Figs. 14-17) in k-space to form three sets of guided beams associated with three sets of k-vectors lying in a first set of three domains within the annular guided propagation domain including the first domain, as OPE,MPE diffracts guided beams creating sets of k-vectors at different locations/domains in k-space annulus, paragraphs [158-169,175-183,185-200, 201-216,223, 246-256, 6-9], e.g. Figs. 12-17, 14A-C,16-17). Therefore the structures of waveguide of Bhargava in the above noted examples include the recited structures of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 10 of the Remarks dated 06/17/2026.
Regarding the arguments for the 112(b) rejections, while it is appreciated the explanations regarding the functionality of the recited waveguide and what a person of ordinary skill in the art of diffractive waveguide optics would readily understand from recited language, the main point of indefiniteness regarding the distinction between diffracted beams and guided beams, is not adequately reflected in the claim language. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights