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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0003762 (“MACNAMARA”).
Regarding claim 1, MACNAMARA teaches an optical expansion waveguide (FG. 3A), comprising a first waveguide substrate (“Coupling Tube”) and a second waveguide substrate (504a – 504n), wherein, the first waveguide substrate is configured for expanding a light beam entering the first waveguide substrate in a first dimensional direction (y), and the first waveguide substrate comprises a plurality of first reflective surfaces arranged in sequence (556a – 556n), the plurality of first reflective surfaces being configured for at least partially reflecting light incident on the first reflective surfaces, such that at least part of the light is coupled into the second waveguide substrate (FIG. 3A); and the second waveguide substrate is configured for expanding a light beam entering the second waveguide substrate in a second dimensional direction (x), and the second waveguide substrate comprises a plurality of second reflective surfaces (540a – 540n) arranged in sequence, the plurality of second reflective surfaces being configured for at least partially reflecting light incident on the second reflective surfaces, such that at least part of the light is emitted out of the second waveguide substrate (FIG. 3A), and wherein at least one of the first reflective surfaces and the second reflective surfaces is at least partially curved, such that an image distance of an image formed by emitted light from the second waveguide substrate meets a preset requirement (FIG. 3A; pars. [0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 2, MACNAMARA teaches that a first reflective surface is at least partially curved, and enables light reflected by the first reflective surface to diverge; or a second reflective surface is at least partially curved, and enables light reflected from the second reflective surface to diverge (FIGs. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 3, MACNAMARA teaches that each of the first reflective surfaces forms an inclination angle with respect to the first dimensional direction (FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 12, MACNAMARA teaches that the first waveguide substrate further comprises a first out-coupling surface through which the reflected light of the first reflective surface is emitted out of the first waveguide substrate, and the second waveguide substrate further comprises a second in-coupling surface through which the emitted light from the first waveguide substrate enters the second waveguide substrate, wherein the first out-coupling surface and the second in-coupling surface are optically coaxial (FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 13, MACNAMARA teaches that the first out-coupling surface is a plane, an inclined plane, a serrated surface, or a curved surface, and the second in-coupling surface is a plane, an inclined plane, a serrated surface, or a curved surface (FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 14, MACNAMARA teaches that the first waveguide substrate is placed in front of, behind or above the second waveguide substrate (FIG. 3A).
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.
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.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACNAMARA in view of CN 104656258 (“ZHANG”).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, MCNAMARA teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. MCNAMARA does not teach that the first and second waveguide substrates further comprise at least first and third sets of opposite surfaces, respectively, and that light entering the first and second waveguide substrates is reflected on each surface of the first and third sets of opposite surfaces, respectively, to propagate forward. ZHANG teaches a first waveguide substrate comprising at least a first set of opposite surfaces, and light entering the first waveguide substrate is reflected on each surface of the first set of opposite surfaces to propagate forward (FIGs. 1, 4, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the waveguide of MACNAMARA such that light propagation is achieved via reflection from opposite surfaces, as taught by ZHANG. The motivation would have been to employ the common optical feature of total internal reflection so as to achieve the light expansion through the waveguide.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, ZHANG further teaches at least one surface of the first and third sets of opposite surfaces, respectively, is at least partially curved, to change an incident angle of reflected light from the surface when incident on the first and second reflective surfaces, respectively, so as to assist in achieving that the image distance of the image formed by the light emitted from the second waveguide substrate meets the preset requirement (FIGs. 5, 6; par. [0032]).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, ZHANG further teaches that at least one surface of the first and third sets of opposite surfaces, respectively, enables reflected light from the surface to diverge (FIGs. 5, 6; par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG further teaches that each of the second reflective surfaces forms an inclination angle with respect to any surface of the third set of opposite surfaces (FIGs. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 9, ZHANG further teaches that an inclination angle formed by a second reflective surface with respect to a surface, serving as an out-coupling surface, in the third set of opposite surfaces is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 45°, wherein the inclination angle of the second reflective surface with respect to the surface is positive when the second reflective surface rotates counterclockwise with respect to this surface (FIG. 9; par. [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights