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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 12, 2026; October 7, 2024; and July 11, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Eight (8) sheets of drawings were filed on July 11, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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 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, 10-13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valera et al. (US 2016/0041387 A1), hereafter Valera.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-13; Valera discloses a waveguide (glass slab waveguide 11; see Figure 3) comprising:
an incoupler (input prism unit 13) to incouple light of a first polarization state (S-polarized light); and
a reflective structure (17/18) to receive incoupled light of the first polarization state (S-polarized light) and reflect it with a second polarization state (P-polarized light) toward an outcoupler (25; see paragraphs 57 and 59);
wherein the reflective structure (17/18) comprises a prism (17);
wherein the reflective structure comprises a waveplate (26) to convert light of the first polarization state to the second polarization state;
wherein the reflective structure comprises a mirror (18);
wherein the prism is a right-angle prism (17) with mirrored internal surfaces (reflective coating 18 forms mirrored internal surfaces, i.e. adjacent surface portions, along prism 17; see Figure 3).
Regarding claims 16 and 18; Valera et al. discloses a method (see Figure 3) comprising:
incoupling, via an incoupler (12/13), light of a first polarization state (S-polarized light; see Paragraphs 57 and 59) into a waveguide (11); and
receiving, at a reflective structure (17/18), incoupled light of the first polarization state (S-polarized light) and
reflecting it with a second polarization state (P-polarized light) toward an outcoupler (25);
further comprising converting the incoupled light of the first polarization state to the second polarization state via a waveplate (26) in the reflective structure (see Figure 3).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansotte et al. (US 2019/0265486 A1), hereafter Hansotte.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, and 14; Hansotte discloses a waveguide (transparent waveguide 50; see Figure 3, or alternative Figure 4, Figure 5A, or Figure 5B) comprising:
an incoupler (grating 34) to incouple light of a first polarization state (P); and
a reflective structure (mirror 32) to receive incoupled light of the first polarization state (P) and reflect it with a second polarization state (S) toward an outcoupler (grating 42);
wherein the reflective structure (32) is on an opposite side of the incoupler (34) as the outcoupler (42);
further comprising a polarization beam splitter layer (90; see Figure 5A and 5B) at an interface between the incoupler (34) and a waveguide substrate of the waveguide (50);
wherein the polarization beam splitter layer (90) transmits light of the first polarization state and reflects light of the second polarization state (see Figure 5B and paragraph 33);
wherein the reflective structure comprises a mirror (32);
wherein the reflective structure comprises a waveplate (46) to convert light of the first polarization state to the second polarization state
Regarding claims 16-19; Hansotte discloses a method (see Figures 3, 4, 5A, 5B) comprising:
incoupling, via an incoupler (34), light of a first polarization state (P) into a waveguide (50); and
receiving, at a reflective structure (32), incoupled light of the first polarization state (P) and
reflecting it with a second polarization state (S) toward an outcoupler (42);
wherein the reflective structure (32) is on an opposite side of the incoupler (34) as the outcoupler (42);
further comprising converting the incoupled light of the first polarization state to the second polarization state via a waveplate (46) in the reflective structure;
further comprising reflecting light of the second polarization state (S) at an interface of the incoupler (34) and a waveguide substrate of the waveguide (50).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansotte et al. (US 2019/0265486 A1), hereafter Hansotte.
Regarding claim 3; Hansotte discloses the waveguide of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches that the incoupler (grating 34) may involve coupling and reflecting light wherein a grating operates in transmission mode and reflection mode (see paragraph 37). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively form the grating (34; see Figure 3) to operate and both transmission mode and reflection mode such that the incoupler (grating 34) transmits light of the first polarization state and reflects light of the second polarization state for the purpose of efficiently coupling a desired amount of light into the waveguide.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US 2022/0137411 A1), hereafter Lam.
Regarding claim 1; Lam discloses a waveguide (1310, 1340, 1342; see Figures 5 and 13A-13C) comprising:
an incoupler (1320, 1350, 1352) to incouple light (1330, 1360, 1382) of a first polarization state (S); and
a reflective structure (1322, 1370, 1372) to receive incoupled light of the first polarization state (S) and reflect it with a second polarization state (P) within the waveguide (1310, 1340, 1342).
Lam does not disclose the second polarization state (P) is reflected toward an outcoupler in Figures 13A-13C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that an outcoupler is inherently required for the display to function, wherein Figures 13A-13C illustrate alternative embodiments of an incoupler and corresponding reflective structure. In Figure 5, Lam teaches that a display waveguide (520) comprises an incoupler (530) and an outcoupler (540) spaced therefrom.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an outcoupler spaced from the incoupler (1322, 1370, 1272) in the embodiments of Figures 13A, 13B, and 13C of Lam for the purpose of outcoupling light to display an image, since Lam teaches that an output coupler (540) may be provided spaced from input couplers (530) and the waveguide displays of Figures 13A, 13B, and 13C of Lam must necessarily include an output coupler for the displays to be viewed.
Regarding claim 6; Lam further teaches that the reflective structure comprises a diffractive grating with a fraction pitch of a grating of the incoupler (phase structures or gratings 1322, 1360, 1370, 1362, 1372 formed as a subwavelength grating structure; see paragraphs 148 and 152; the examiner notes that a subwavelength grating will inherently have a fraction pitch of a grating of the incoupler, however, should applicant disagree, the examiner notes that any value may be written as a fraction including 1/1).
Regarding claim 7; before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the fraction pitch of the subwavelength grating structure to be any desired value, including half of a pitch of the in-coupling grating structure, for the purpose of obtaining desired optical coupling results, since the relationship between pitch and grating function is well understood with respect to desired light coupling outcomes in the art and would be unlikely to yield any novel or unexpected results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8; Lam teaches wherein the reflective structure comprises a waveplate to convert light of the first polarization state to the second polarization state (QWP; see paragraph 150).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansotte et al. (US 2019/0265486 A1), hereafter Hansotte, in view of Levola (US 2005/0002611 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 20; Hansotte discloses the waveguide of claim 1 and method of claim 16 as applied above, but fails to disclose that the incoupler comprises a binary diffractive incoupler grating. Levola teaches that providing an in-coupling diffractive grating with a binary type profile is preferred for enabling polarization conversion (see paragraph 41). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the incoupler comprise a binary diffractive incoupler grating to provide a diffraction efficiency suitable for polarization conversion situations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the waveguide defined by claim 9, wherein the diffractive gating is on a same surface of a waveguide substrate of the waveguide as the incoupler in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 1 and all of the limitations of intervening claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights