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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/30/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Eash in view of Tammela, fails to disclose the limitations of dependent claim 12, specifically, “wherein the first waveguide comprises a linear waveguide and the second waveguide comprises a non-linear waveguide”. Applicant notes that Tammela does not disclose a stacked waveguide including both a curved waveguide and a planar waveguide. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that in Para [0048-0049] and Fig 4 of Tammela the first and the second waveguides of the application are being interpreted as the cover plate 304 and the wave guide 312 of Tammela. In Fig 4 discloses a flat/linear cover plate 304 stacked on top of a waveguide 312 with curved portions as disclosed in Para [0043 and 0049]. For this reason, examiner maintains the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103 over Eash in view of Tammela.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eash (US 2021/0208407, of record) in view of Schowengerdt (US 2018/0374266).
Regarding claim 1, Eash discloses a stacked waveguide (see Fig 11), comprising: a first waveguide including a first incoupler configured to direct a first portion of a display light having a first wavelength and a second portion of the display light having a second wavelength into the first waveguide, wherein the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a first waveguide 1120 has a first incoupler which is configured to direct light of red and green wavelengths into the waveguide) and wherein the first waveguide has a first thickness (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a first waveguide 1120 has a first thickness as seen in Fig 11); and a second waveguide including a second incoupler configured to direct a third portion of the display light having a third wavelength into the second waveguide, wherein the third wavelength is different from the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a second waveguide 1110 has an incoupler configured to direct blue light into the waveguide), and wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a second waveguide 1110 has a second thickness as seen in Fig 11).
Eash does not disclose and wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness. Eash and Schowengerdt are related because both disclose stacked waveguides.
Schowengerdt discloses a stacked waveguide (see Fig 26A) wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness (see Fig 26A; Para [0025]; Schowengerdt discloses wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness as seen in Fig 26A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash with wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness of Schowengerdt for the purpose of facilitating substantially total internal reflection of light beams (see Para [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 1 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first waveguide includes a first material and the second waveguide includes a second material that is different from the first material (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the waveguide 1110 which may have less resolution may be made of plastic compared to the second waveguide 1120 with higher resolution being made of glass).
Regarding claim 3, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 2 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the second material includes a plastic film (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the blue waveguide 1110 which may have less resolution may be made of plastic).
Regarding claim 4, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 1 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first waveguide is associated with a first parallelism requirement and the second waveguide is associated with a second parallelism requirement that represents a degree of tolerance is higher than the first parallelism requirement (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the waveguide with higher resolution, the red and green waveguide, is manufactured with tighter tolerances or lower degree of tolerance compared to the lower resolution waveguide, the blue waveguide, that is manufactured with looser or higher degree of tolerance).
Regarding claim 6, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 1 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the third wavelength is associated with blue light (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; the third wavelength is associated with blue light).
Regarding claim 8, Eash discloses a method (see Fig 11), comprising: emitting display light toward a first incoupler of a first waveguide and a second incoupler of a second waveguide (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; display engine 1140 and 1120 displays light towards a first red green incoupler and a second blue incoupler); directing, by the first incoupler, a first portion of the display light having a first wavelength and a second portion of the display light having a second wavelength into the first waveguide, wherein the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; red/green incoupler directs red and green light into the waveguide 1120); and directing, by the second incoupler, a third portion of the display light having a third wavelength into the second waveguide, wherein the third wavelength is different from the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; Blue incoupler directs blue light into the second waveguide 1110).
Eash does not disclose and wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness. Eash and Schowengerdt are related because both disclose stacked waveguides.
Schowengerdt discloses a stacked waveguide (see Fig 26A) wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness (see Fig 26A; Para [0025]; Schowengerdt discloses wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness as seen in Fig 26A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash with wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness of Schowengerdt for the purpose of facilitating substantially total internal reflection of light beams (see Para [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 8 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first waveguide includes a first material and the second waveguide includes a second material that is different from the first material (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the waveguide 1110 which may have less resolution may be made of plastic compared to the waveguide 1120 with higher resolution being made of glass).
Regarding claim 10, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 9 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the second material includes a plastic film (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the blue waveguide 1110 which may have less resolution may be made of plastic).
Regarding claim 11, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 10 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first material comprises glass (see Fig 11; Para [0052; 0083]; the higher resolution first waveguide may be formed of glass as stated in Para [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 8 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the third wavelength is associated with blue light (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; the second waveguide is associated with blue light).
Regarding claim 15, Eash discloses a wearable display (see Fig 11), comprising: one or more optical engines configured to emit display light (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; two display engines, 1120 and 1140, are configured to emit display light); a first waveguide including a first incoupler configured to direct a first portion of the display light having a first wavelength and a second portion of the display light having a second wavelength into the first waveguide, wherein the first wavelength is different from the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; red/green incoupler directs red and green light into the waveguide 1120); and a second waveguide including a second incoupler configured to direct a third portion of the display light having a third wavelength into the second waveguide, wherein the third wavelength is different from the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; Blue incoupler directs blue light into the second waveguide 1110).
Eash does not disclose and wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness. Eash and Schowengerdt are related because both disclose stacked waveguides.
Schowengerdt discloses a stacked waveguide (see Fig 26A) wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness (see Fig 26A; Para [0025]; Schowengerdt discloses wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness as seen in Fig 26A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash with wherein the second waveguide has a second thickness less than the first thickness of Schowengerdt for the purpose of facilitating substantially total internal reflection of light beams (see Para [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the wearable display of claim 15 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the one or more optical engines include: a first optical engine configured to emit the first portion of the display light and the second portion of the display light; and a second optical engine configured to emit the third portion of the display light, wherein the second optical engine has a lower resolution than the first optical engine (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a red/green first display engine and a second blue display engine with lower resolution are used in the display device).
Regarding claim 17, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the wearable display of claim 15 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first waveguide includes a first material and the second waveguide includes a second material that is different from the first material (see Fig 11; Para [0052]; the waveguide 1110 which may have less resolution may be made of plastic compared to the waveguide 1120 with higher resolution being made of glass).
Regarding claim 18, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the wearable display of claim 15 (see Fig 11). Eash further discloses wherein the first waveguide includes a first outcoupler configured to direct the first portion of the display light and the second portion of the display light toward an eye of a user (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a red/green outcoupler is provided on waveguide 1120 to direct light towards an eye) and wherein the second waveguide includes a second outcoupler configured to direct the third portion of the display light toward the eye of a user (see Fig 11; Para [0083]; a blue outcoupler is provided on waveguide 1110 to direct light towards an eye).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eash (US 2021/0208407, of record) in view of Schowengerdt (US 2018/0374266) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant (US 2022/0197026, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 1 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Grant are related because both disclose waveguides.
Grant discloses a stacked waveguide (see Fig 4) wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate (see Fig 4; Para [0156-0158]; a second waveguide 230 may be disposed on a surface of a waveguide substrate 200 and may be made of plastics as stated in Para [0145])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate of Grant for the purpose of improving user privacy and social acceptability by reducing eye-glow (Para [0130]).
Regarding claim 19, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the HWD of claim 15 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Grant are related because both disclose head worn devices.
Grant discloses a head worn device (see Fig 4) wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate (see Fig 4; Para [0156-0158]; a second waveguide 230 may be disposed on a surface of a waveguide substrate 200 and may be made of plastics as stated in Para [0145])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the second waveguide is disposed on a surface of a plastic substrate of Grant for the purpose of improving user privacy and social acceptability by reducing eye-glow (Para [0130]).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eash (US 2021/0208407, of record) in view of Schowengerdt (US 2018/0374266) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0187599, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the stacked waveguide of claim 1 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Lee are related because both disclose waveguide type display devices.
Lee discloses a waveguide type display device (see Fig 1) wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index (see Fig 4; Para [0080]; a refractive index of a second waveguide 134 may be less than the refractive index of the first waveguide 122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index of Lee for the purpose of reducing an amount of image leakage to the outside of the device (Para [0002])
Regarding claim 14, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 8 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Lee are related because both disclose methods using waveguide type display devices.
Lee discloses a method using a waveguide type display device (see Fig 1) wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index (see Fig 4; Para [0080]; a refractive index of a second waveguide 134 may be less than the refractive index of the first waveguide 122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index of Lee for the purpose of reducing an amount of image leakage to the outside of the device (Para [0002])
Regarding claim 20, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the HWD of claim 15 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Lee are related because both disclose waveguide type display devices.
Lee discloses a waveguide type display device (see Fig 1) wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index (see Fig 4; Para [0080]; a refractive index of a second waveguide 134 may be less than the refractive index of the first waveguide 122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the first waveguide has a first refractive index and the second waveguide has a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index of Lee for the purpose of reducing an amount of image leakage to the outside of the device (Para [0002])
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eash (US 2021/0208407, of record) in view of Schowengerdt (US 2018/0374266) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tammela (US 2023/0122300, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Eash in view of Schowengerdt discloses the method of claim 8 (see Fig 4). Eash in view of Schowengerdt does not disclose wherein the first waveguide comprises a linear waveguide and the second waveguide comprises a non-linear waveguide. Eash in view of Schowengerdt and Tammela are related because both disclose methods of displaying optical light.
Tammela discloses a method of displaying optical light (see Fig 4) wherein the first waveguide comprises a linear waveguide and the second waveguide comprises a non-linear waveguide (see Fig 4; Para [0049]; a first waveguide is being interpreted as element 304 and a second waveguide is being interpreted as element 312; Eash discloses linear parallel waveguide as seen in Fig 11; Tammela discloses the element 312 which may be formed in a non-linear fashion)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eash in view of Schowengerdt with wherein the first waveguide comprises a linear waveguide and the second waveguide comprises a non-linear waveguide of Tammela for the purpose of improving the flexibility in the placement of the output optical element (Para [0049]).
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 GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights