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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 and B1 in the reply filed on May 28, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 4–6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being nonelected, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the Reply.
Upon further consideration, Claims 8, 9, and 12–14 (Species B2) will be examined, and the Restriction between Species B1 and B2 is withdrawn in view of a search for art related to Species B1 finding art with respect to B2, evidencing a lack of search burden.
In view of the above noted partial withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0141228 to Chien.
Regarding Claim 1, Chien discloses (referring to the embodiment of Fig. 2A, though the whole relatively brief document appears relevant) a near-eye display device 100, comprising: one or more optical waveguide 200a/205/120, the optical waveguide 200a defines a first surface 220 and a second surface 210, wherein the first surface and the second surface are arranged on opposite sides of the near-eye display device (Fig. 2A), the first surface is opposite to the second surface in a first direction (D3 in Fig. 2A); the first surface defines a first emergent area and a second emergent area (left and right of central concave area 230), the first emergent area is spaced apart from the second emergent area in a second direction (direction D1, Fig. 2A), the first direction intersects with the second direction (Fig. 2A); a display 110 provided at one side of the optical waveguide, and configured to emit an image light 112 into the optical waveguide (e.g., Fig. 2A and paragraphs [0016] and [0028]), the emitted image light comprising a first image light, and a projection of the display on the first surface of the optical waveguide being between the first emergent area and the second emergent area (Fig. 2A); an optical splitter assembly (combination of surface 230 and reflectors 234 and 236), a first coupling-out member (combination of transmission surfaces 224a and reflecting slopes 222) and a second coupling-out member (combination of transmission surfaces 226 and reflecting slopes 228a, illustrated in Fig. 2A), wherein the optical splitter assembly is provided on the optical waveguide (Fig. 2A), the optical splitter assembly is configured to split the first image light into a first light beam 112b and a second light beam 112c, the first light beam propagates within the optical waveguide to the first coupling-out member (Fig. 2A), and the first coupling-out member is configured to couple the first light beam out of the optical waveguide (Fig. 2A, through compensating waveguide 205), the second light beam propagates within the optical waveguide to the second coupling-out member (Fig. 2A), and the second coupling-out member is configured to couple the second light beam out of the optical waveguide (Fig. 2A, through compensating waveguide 205).
Regarding Claim 16, Chien discloses the near-eye display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more optical waveguide is a monolithic substrate structure (Fig. 2A).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien in view of CN 115220235 A (copy with machine translation attached with this Office action, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding Claim 2, Chien does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical splitter assembly comprises an optical splitter grating, the optical splitter grating is configured to split the first image light into the first light beam and the second light beam, and couple the first light beam into the optical waveguide on one side of the optical splitter grating along the second direction, and couple the second light beam into the optical waveguide on another side of the optical splitter grating along the second direction.
Li discloses a near-eye display, similar to Chien, and Li teaches a suitable optical splitter may be a grating that splits light to either side of the waveguide towards exit portions (e.g., Fig. 1; paragraph [n0034], “coupled-in diffraction optical element 13 . . . is composed of a first polarizer holographic grating PVG1 and a second polarizer holographic grating PVG2 stacked together . . . to achieve high-efficiency waveguide coupling”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Chien such that the optical splitter assembly comprises an optical splitter grating, the optical splitter grating is configured to split the first image light into the first light beam and the second light beam, and couple the first light beam into the optical waveguide on one side of the optical splitter grating along the second direction, and couple the second light beam into the optical waveguide on another side of the optical splitter grating along the second direction, as suggested by Li, as a suitable configuration for an optical splitter (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07), and in order to achieve high-efficiency waveguide coupling.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Chien and Li would have rendered obvious wherein the first coupling-out member comprises a first diffraction grating, the first diffraction grating is configured to refract the first light beam, and the first light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the first emergent area and emitted out from the first emergent area (e.g., Fig. 1 of Li).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chien and Li would have rendered obvious wherein the first diffraction grating is a surface relief grating or a volume holographic grating (e.g., Li, PVG1/PVG2 at respective emergent areas, Fig. 1, paragraph [n0034], holographic gratings).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Chien and Li would have rendered obvious wherein the second coupling-out member comprises a second diffraction grating, the second diffraction grating is configured to refract the second light beam, and the second light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the second emergent area and emitted out from the second emergent area (e.g., Li, PVG1/PVG2 at respective emergent areas, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Chien and Li would have rendered obvious wherein the second diffraction grating is a surface relief grating or a volume holographic grating (e.g., Li, PVG1/PVG2 at respective emergent areas, Fig. 1, paragraph [n0034], holographic gratings).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Chien and Li would have rendered obvious wherein the first coupling-out member comprises a first diffraction grating, the first diffraction grating is configured to refract the first light beam, and the first light beam is emitted from the first emergent area; the second coupling-out member comprises a second diffraction grating, the second diffraction grating is configured to refract the second light beam, and the second light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the second emergent area and emitted out from the second emergent area; and the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating are axisymmetric about a center line of the optical waveguide in the second direction (e.g., Li, PVG1/PVG2 at respective emergent areas, Fig. 1, paragraph [n0034], holographic gratings).
Claims 7, 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien.
Regarding Claim 7, Chien would have rendered obvious wherein the first coupling-out member comprises a first semi-reflective mirror (e.g., reflecting slope 222, not explicitly described as “semi-reflective mirror,” but using known reflective configurations would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, and where Applicant’s specification does not appear to differentiate between effects of a semi-reflective mirror and any other type of reflecting surface), the first semi-reflective mirror is disposed on one side of the optical waveguide near the second surface, the first semi-reflective mirror is configured to refract the first light beam, and the first light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the first emergent area and emitted out from the first emergent area (e.g., Fig. 2A, also where Chien teaches alternative embodiments where the emergent area is alternatively on the same or the opposite side of the display 110, e.g., Figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding Claim 10, Chien would have rendered obvious wherein the second coupling-out member comprises a second semi-reflective mirror (e.g., reflecting slope 226, not explicitly described as “semi-reflective mirror,” but using known reflective configurations would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, and where Applicant’s specification does not appear to differentiate between effects of a semi-reflective mirror and any other type of reflecting surface), the second semi-reflective mirror is disposed on one side of the optical waveguide near the second surface, the second semi-reflective mirror is configured to refract the second light beam, and the second light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the second emergent area and emitted out from the second emergent area (e.g., Fig. 2A, also where Chien teaches alternative embodiments where the emergent area is alternatively on the same or the opposite side of the display 110, e.g., Figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding Claim 11, Chien would have rendered obvious wherein the first coupling-out member comprises a first semi-reflective mirror (e.g., reflecting slope 222, not explicitly described as “semi-reflective mirror,” but using known reflective configurations would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, and where Applicant’s specification does not appear to differentiate between effects of a semi-reflective mirror and any other type of reflecting surface), the first semi-reflective mirror is disposed on one side of the optical waveguide near the second surface, the first semi-reflective mirror is configured to refract the first light beam, and the first light beam is transmitted in the optical waveguide to the first emergent area and emitted out from the first emergent area (e.g., Fig. 2A, also where Chien teaches alternative embodiments where the emergent area is alternatively on the same or the opposite side of the display 110, e.g., Figs. 2A and 2B); the second coupling-out member comprises a second semi-reflective mirror (e.g., reflecting slope 226, not explicitly described as “semi-reflective mirror,” but using known reflective configurations would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, and where Applicant’s specification does not appear to differentiate between effects of a semi-reflective mirror and any other type of reflecting surface), the second semi-reflective mirror is disposed on one side of the optical waveguide near the second surface, the second semi-reflective mirror is configured to refract the second light beam, and the second light beam is emitted from the second emergent area (e.g., Fig. 2A, also where Chien teaches alternative embodiments where the emergent area is alternatively on the same or the opposite side of the display 110, e.g., Figs. 2A and 2B); the first semi-reflective mirror and the second semi-reflective mirror are axisymmetric about a center line of the optical waveguide in the second direction (e.g., Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 17, Chien would have rendered obvious a first wave plate and a second wave plate, the first wave plate is arranged on the first emergent area, the second wave plate is arranged on the second emergent area (where Chien appears to show a single wave plate, but forming the single waveplate of Chien as two separate waveplates, each associated with a separate optical function or portion of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, within the level of ordinary skill, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04(V)–(VI)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 are 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:
Regarding Claim 3, while Chien discloses that the image light 112 emitted by the display further comprises a second image light (e.g., 112a/c), the first image light is parallel to the second image light (Fig. 2A, 112a/c), a propagation path of first image light is adjacent to a propagation path of the second image light (Fig. 2A), Chien does not appear to disclose that the optical splitter assembly is configured to split the second image light into a third light beam and a fourth light beam; the optical splitter assembly further comprises a light absorbing portion, the light absorbing portion is located inside of the optical waveguide, the light absorbing portion is configured to absorb the second light beam and the third light beam, and the first light beam is transmitted to the first coupling-out member, the fourth light beam is transmitted to the second coupling-out member. The remaining cited art does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Chien in this regard.
Regarding Claim 15, while Chien discloses a plurality of optical waveguides (e.g., 200a/205/120), and that the plurality of optical waveguides are arranged one on top of another in the first direction, Chien does not appear to disclose that a second surface of each of the plurality of optical waveguides is a fully reflective surface, and a range of wavelengths of light reflected by the second surface of each of the plurality of optical waveguides is different from each other. The remaining cited art does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Chien in this regard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights