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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 10, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 16 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 21 – “central waveguide core” is presumed to be intended as “a central waveguide core”
Claim 10 – “the input optics comprises” is presumed to be intended as “the input optics comprise”
Claim 16 – “the output optics comprises” is presumed to be intended as “the output optics comprise”
Claim 21, line 2 – “the method comprising;” is presumed to be intended as “the method comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihmels (US 2019/0101761).
Regarding claim 1, Ihmels discloses an eyeglass lens (100) for an augmented reality display (Figs. 1, 2, 4), the eyeglass lens comprising:
a first lens part (one 110) and a second lens part (other 110), with a cylindrical waveguide (120, 131, 132; paras. [0033, 0045], all layers follow the same shape of the lens structure) therebetween;
the cylindrical waveguide having cylindrical concentric opposing surfaces defining a first cylindrical interface (121 or 132) with the first lens part (110) and a second cylindrical interface (122 or 131) with the second lens part (110) (paras. [0045-0046]), and wherein the cylindrical waveguide is transparent (para. [0039]) and comprises central waveguide core (120) with a transparent medium (131, 132; para. [0039]) at the first and second cylindrical interfaces (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Ihmels discloses wherein the central waveguide core (120) has a higher refractive index than the transparent medium (131, 132) (paras. [0039, 0044, 0051, 0058, 0072]; claim 18).
Regarding claim 3, Ihmels discloses wherein the transparent medium is an adhesive material or is an air gap (para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Ihmels discloses wherein the first lens part, second lens part, cylindrical waveguide and transparent medium are arranged as an optical stack (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Ihmels discloses wherein the eyeglass lens (100) has a major axis and a minor axis, the first and second cylindrical interfaces having a curved profile along the major axis (Figs. 1, 2, 4; paras. [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Ihmels discloses wherein the first and second cylindrical interfaces have a linear profile along the minor axis, and wherein the first lens part and the second lens part have a spherical outer profile (Figs. 1, 2, 4; paras. [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Ihmels discloses further comprising input optics, wherein the input optics are configured and arranged to couple light into the cylindrical waveguide (paras. [0033, 0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Ihmels discloses further comprising output optics configured and arranged to receive propagated light from the cylindrical waveguide and present the light as an image to a user’s eye (paras. [0008, 0033, 0044]).
Regarding claim 21, Ihmels discloses a method of manufacturing an eyeglass lens (100) for an augmented reality display (Figs. 1-4), the method comprising;
forming a first lens part (110) and a second lens part (110) and inserting a cylindrical waveguide (120, 131, 132; paras. [0033, 0045], all layers follow the same shape of the lens structure) therebetween;
forming the cylindrical waveguide with cylindrical concentric opposing surfaces defining a first cylindrical interface (121 or 132) with the first lens part (110) and a second cylindrical interface (122 or 131) with the second lens part (110) (paras. [0045-0046]), and wherein the cylindrical waveguide is transparent (para. [0039]) and comprises central waveguide core (120) with a transparent medium (131, 132; para. [0039]) at the first cylindrical interface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Ihmels discloses wherein the central waveguide core (120) has a higher refractive index than the transparent medium (131, 132) (paras. [0039, 0044, 0051, 0058, 0072]; claim 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihmels (US 2019/0101761), as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Trail et al. (US 10,481,321), of record.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Ihmels discloses wherein the input optics comprises an in-coupling linear diffraction grating applied to a surface of the waveguide, and wherein the output optics comprises an out-coupling linear diffraction grating applied to a surface of the waveguide (Figs. 1, 2, 4; paras. [0032]).
Ihmels fails to explicitly disclose the in-coupling linear diffraction grating and the out-coupling linear diffraction grating having a constant period.
However, Trail discloses an eyeglass lens (100) for an augmented reality display (Figs. 1-12), wherein the input optics (350) comprises an in-coupling linear diffraction grating having a constant period, applied to a surface of the waveguide (320), and wherein the output optics (365) comprises an out-coupling linear diffraction grating having a constant period, applied to a surface of the waveguide (320) (Figs. 3-4; col. 3, line 58 – col. 4, line 35; col. 5, lines 52-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the in-coupling linear diffraction grating and the out-coupling linear diffraction grating having a constant period, as in Trail, into the eyeglass lens of Ihmels for uniform diffraction.
Regarding claim 11, Ihmels discloses wherein the in-coupling linear diffraction grating is attached to the waveguide at the first cylindrical interface or the second cylindrical interface (Figs. 1, 2, 4; para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Ihmels discloses wherein the in-coupling linear diffraction grating is formed of a holographic material (paras. [0004, 0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Ihmels discloses wherein the input optics are configured and arranged to receive light rays from an image source (220, Fig. 2) and to cause the light rays to enter the cylindrical waveguide (para. [0053]).
Ihmels fails to explicitly disclose all light rays originating from a same pixel of the image source are incident on the surface of the cylindrical waveguide at the same angle relative to the surface normal and at the same angle relative to a plane normal to the common cylinder axis, at each point of incidence, the in-coupled light thereby retaining its direction angle as it propagates along the cylindrical waveguide.
However, Trail discloses wherein the input optics are configured and arranged to receive light rays (355) from an image source (310) and to cause the light rays to enter the cylindrical waveguide (320) so that all light rays originating from a same pixel of the image source are incident on the surface of the cylindrical waveguide at the same angle relative to the surface normal and at the same angle relative to a plane normal to the common cylinder axis, at each point of incidence, the in-coupled light thereby retaining its direction angle as it propagates along the cylindrical waveguide (Figs. 3-4, 12; col. 5, lines 52-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate all light rays originating from a same pixel of the image source are incident on the surface of the cylindrical waveguide at the same angle relative to the surface normal and at the same angle relative to a plane normal to the common cylinder axis, at each point of incidence, the in-coupled light thereby retaining its direction angle as it propagates along the cylindrical waveguide, as in Trail, into the eyeglass lens of Ihmels for light efficiency.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Ihmels discloses wherein the out-coupling linear diffraction grating is attached to the waveguide at the first cylindrical interface or the second cylindrical interface (Figs. 1, 2, 4; para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Ihmels discloses wherein the out-coupling linear diffraction grating is formed of a holographic material (paras. [0004, 0031-0032]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihmels (US 2019/0101761) in view of Trail et al. (US 10,481,321), as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Leister (US 2019/0369403), of record.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Ihmels in view of Trail fails to explicitly disclose wherein the in-coupling linear diffraction grating is switchable, and wherein the out-coupling linear diffraction grating is switchable.
However, Leister discloses an eyeglass lens for an augmented reality display (Figs. 5-26), wherein the in-coupling linear diffraction grating and the out-coupling linear diffraction grating (12, Fig. 9) are switchable (para. [0190]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the in-coupling linear diffraction grating is switchable, and wherein the out-coupling linear diffraction grating is switchable, as in Leister, into the eyeglass lens and method of Ihmels and Trail for further controllability as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, filed August 10, 2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Trail in view of Leister, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ihmels as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights