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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/27/24, 9/11/24, and 4/21/26 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klienman et al. (US 2018/0052276 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Klienman et al. discloses a device (Fig. 25; [0306]-[0307]) comprising:
a waveguide 2502 (Fig. 25; [0307]) comprising:
an incoupler (IC) 2520 having surface relief gratings at a first region (Fig. 25; [0307] and [0331]); and
a combined exit pupil expander (EPE) 2530 and output coupler (OC) 2540 having diffraction gratings at a second region and a third region of the waveguide 2502, wherein the second region and the third region at least partially overlap laterally relative to an expected position of a user's eye (Fig. 25; [0303] and [0306]).
While Klienman et al. discloses the gratings are not limited to diffraction gratings ([0303]), Klienman et al. does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the gratings at the second and third regions are formed with surface relief gratings.
With respect to the IC, Klienman et al. teaches a surface relief grating is a suitable substitute for a diffraction grating ([0331]), as is well known in the art, and accordingly one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Klienman et al. discloses the diffraction grating 2530 at the second region provide exit pupil expansion functionality for display light propagated in the waveguide; and the diffraction grating 2540 at the third region provide outcoupling functionality for display light propagated in the waveguide 2502 (Fig. 25; [0307]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 3, Klienman et al. discloses the second region is formed on a first side of the waveguide and the third region is formed on an opposing second side of the waveguide ([0307]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 4, Klienman et al. discloses the third region is formed on a first side of the waveguide and the second region is formed on an opposing second side of the waveguide ([0307]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 5, Klienman et al. discloses the diffraction grating of the second region and the diffraction grating of the third region are one dimensional (1D) gratings (e.g. gratings providing propagation direction change in a single direction; Fig. 25). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 6, Klienman et al. discloses arrangements wherein the second region and the third region are formed on a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 33D). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 10, Klienman et al. discloses an arrangement wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are formed on a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 33D). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 11, Klienman et al. renders obvious the device as discussed above, wherein the second region and the third region are formed on a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 33D). However, Klienman et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein additionally the first region is formed on a first side of the waveguide and the second region and the third region are formed on an opposing second side of the waveguide. Nonetheless, the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re. Claim 12, Klienman et al. discloses an arrangement the surface relief gratings of the first region and the diffraction gratings of the third region are formed at a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 34B). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 13, Klienman et al. discloses the second region and the third region partially overlap laterally relative to the expected position of the user's eye (Fig. 25). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 14, Klienman et al. discloses a lens element, the lens element comprising the waveguide; a support frame 1808 to support the lens element and configured to mount to a head of a user; and a light source 1804 to generate display light for incoupling into the waveguide via an IC (Fig. 18; [0287]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 16, Klienman et al. discloses a method comprising:
providing a waveguide 2502 including an incoupler (IC) 2520 having surface relief gratings at a first region (Fig. 25; [0307] and [0331]), a combined exit pupil expander (EPE) 2530, and output coupler (OC) 2540 having diffraction gratings at a second region and a third region of the waveguide, wherein the second region and the third region at least partially overlap laterally relative to an expected position of a user's eye (Fig. 25; [0303] and [0306]);
incoupling display light to the waveguide via the IC 2520 (Fig. 25; [0302] and [0306]);
propagating the incoupled display light to the combined EPE and OC 2530/2540 ([0307]); and
outcoupling display light with an expanded exit pupil from the waveguide via the combined EPE and OC 2530/2540 ([0307]).
While Klienman et al. discloses the gratings are not limited to diffraction gratings ([0303]), Klienman et al. does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the gratings at the second and third regions are formed with surface relief gratings.
With respect to the IC, Klienman et al. teaches a surface relief grating is a suitable substitute for a diffraction grating ([0331]), as is well known in the art, and accordingly one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 17, Klienman et al. discloses the diffraction gratings at the second region provide exit pupil expansion functionality for display light propagated in the waveguide; and the diffraction gratings at the third region provide outcoupling functionality for display light propagated in the waveguide (Fig. 25; [0307]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 18, Klienman et al. discloses the second region is formed on a first side of the waveguide and the third region is formed on either an opposing second side of the waveguide; or the third region is formed on a first side of the waveguide and the second region is formed on an opposing second side of the waveguide ([0307]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 19, Klienman et al. discloses arrangement wherein the second region and the third region are formed on a same side of the waveguide (Fig. 33D). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7-9, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klienman et al. (US 2018/0052276 A1) and Chi et al. (US 2021/0055552 A1).
Re. Claims 7 and 20, Kleinman et al. renders obvious the device and method as discussed above. In Klienman et al., when the second and third regions are formed on the same side of the waveguide, the regions overlap in their entirety. That is, Klienman et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the second region and third region overlap in at least one overlapping sub-region and do not overlap in at least one non-overlapping sub-region when formed on the same side of the waveguide.
Chi et al. discloses a device having first and second regions having gratings formed on the same side of a waveguide, wherein the second region and third region overlap in at least one overlapping sub-region and do not overlap in at least one non-overlapping sub-region (Fig. 23; [0151]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as Chi et al. discloses the arrangement reduces the physical size of the waveguide display (Chi et al.: [0136]).
Re. Claims 8 and 21, Klienman et al. and Chi et al. render obvious the device and method as discussed above. Klienman et al. further discloses the gratings in the at least one overlapping sub-region are two-dimensional (2D) gratings and the surface relief gratings in the at least one non-overlapping sub-region are one-dimensional (1D) gratings (Figs. 33C and 34A; [0354] and [0359]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 9, Klienman et al. and Chi et al. render obvious the device and method as discussed above. Klienman et al. further discloses gratings comprise at least one of: rectangular pillars, cylindrical pillars, pillars of arbitrary shape and cross-section; or metamaterials ([0594], [0608], and [0655]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 6/16/26
Prosecution Insights