CTNF 18/763,328 CTNF 90670 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Disposition of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The instant claims require different weights on light. It is not clear or definite to one of ordinary skill what structure or function is being carried out by this limitation. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1, 2, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan ( CN 110244463 A, of record ) in view of Hillmer ( US 5600743 A, of record ) and Saito ( US 20090153969 A1, newly cited ) . Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15 , drawn to devices and corresponding method that recite essentially the same features, Pan discloses an optical device ( e.g. for augmented reality applications, see Background and Figs. 9 ), comprising: an in-coupler (IC) ( 103 ) configured to receive light from a projector ( display 101, optics 102 ), a waveguide ( 105 ); and an output coupler (OC) ( 104 ), wherein the IC is configured to redirect the light from the projector to the OC through the waveguide ( Fig. 1 ). PNG media_image1.png 287 411 media_image1.png Greyscale Concerning the phase of the light from the projector, Pan explicitly shows that the IC modulates the amplitude and phase of the light from the projector toward eliminating dispersion and distortion ( “As shown in FIG. 1, … the image source 101 sends light wave, after passing through the collimating lens 102 collimating incident light, by amplitude and phase modulation of the grating coupler 103, the coupling waveguide in the waveguide propagation conditions of total internal reflection, then the incident light to propagate with total reflection form in the waveguide, after reaching the grating 104, phase matching condition is satisfied, no additional phase without dispersion and distortion 105, enters the observer pupils range” ). Pan does not explicitly show wherein the IC includes at least one grating line offset (GLO) associated with one or more phase deviations of the light from the projector. Hillmer drawn to correction using gratings explicitly shows grating lines of different width in order to produce a phase deviation ( see e.g. Fig. 9, vertical grating lines in a horizontal waveguide with the thicker line producing a line offset, and Claim 17, “wherein at least one grating line is of different width than other grating lines so as to produce a phase shift in the corresponding waveguide” ). Saito drawn to grating optimization for image quality in head mounted display devices similarly discloses an explicit variation in grating line pitch, i.e. line offset, according to a phase function toward correction of chromatic aberration ( ¶50 ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the phase modulation known to Pan using a grating line shift disclosed by Hillmer and Saito toward predictably achieving the desired phase deviation and thus correcting optical aberration with a high probability of success. Regarding claim 2 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the at least one GLO comprises different GLOs applied to at least two grating lines of the IC. However, mere repetition of the modification of the Hillmer and Saito to the device of Pan would result in furth predictable phase deviations in pursuit of the same optical corrections, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 6 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one GLO is an offset of a grating line of the IC from a grating line of an IC having periodic grating lines ( Hillmer, Fig. 9 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Pan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crai ( US 20240411067 A1, newly cited ) . Regarding claim 3 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the at least one GLO is determined based on an average of the phase deviations of the light. Crai drawn to augmented reality systems using analogous devices and methods to those of the modified Pan explicitly shows wherein the at least one GLO is determined based on an average of the phase deviations of the light ( ¶713, “The phase compensation at a given location on the lattice may be set according to the variation of the phase shift arising from spatial variations of the IRG. Generally, it may not be possible to determine an exact value for the phase compensation required at a given location as the phase shift from variations of the IRG will depend on diffraction order as well as direction of the incident beam. In this case an average phase shift from the lattice may be computed based on the most important diffraction orders and incident beam directions at a given location. The phase compensation required and so the values of d.sub.x and d.sub.y may then be set accordingly.” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the instructions of Crai and set values depending on the average phase shift for the purpose of correcting the most important diffraction orders and thus obtaining a clear image. Regarding claim 4 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 1, but as best understood does not explicitly show wherein different weights are applied for different wavelengths of the light or field of views (FOVs) associated with the optical device, and wherein the at least one GLO of the IC is determined based on the different weights. Crai drawn to augmented reality systems using analogous devices and methods to those of the modified Pan explicitly shows explicit per wavelength optimization of the waveguide and gratings ( ¶537 ). Indeed, it is exceptionally well known that grating spacings, e.g. from the near field diffraction theory of Fresnel, result in very strong wavelength and angle dependence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the phase deviation modifications of Hillmer and Saito on the device of Pan according to the instructions of Crai toward achieving an undistorted full color image. Regarding claim 7 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one GLO is associated with a determined phase shift to be applied to the light to reduce effects of the one or more phase deviations in one or more image metrics ( e.g. Pan, toward correction of vignetting ). Crai , drawn to augmented reality distortion correction, likewise discloses phase correction toward correction of blurring and color distortion ( ¶622 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have carried out the phase deviation modifications of the modified Pan for the purpose of correcting blurring and color distortion as taught by Crai in the same field of augmented reality endeavor . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Pan as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lam ( US 10578876 B1, newly cited ) . Regarding claim 5 , the modified Pan teaches the optical device of claim 4, but as best understood does not explicitly show wherein the different weights are determined based on a contribution of the different wavelengths or FOVs to a modulation transfer function of the optical device. Crai explicitly contemplates various optimization, ray tracing, and wave-based computation methods toward optimizing the spatial variation of the grating ( ¶698-699 ). Optimizing the modulation transfer function, which is a well known intrinsic feature of all optical systems’ response to spatial variation, is thus considered one of a finite set of optical optimizations known in the art. Indeed, Lam drawn to a waveguide having gratings including a phase-matching region explicitly shows a line offset in the grating toward phase matching ( Fig. 17 ) and a method for improving the modulation transfer function of the device ( Fig. 18, C. 10, ll. 61 – C. 11, ll. 14 ), the device being implemented for full color i.e. different wavelengths ( Claim 16 ). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the instructions of Crai and Lam toward optimizing the optical performance of the modified Pan using well known mathematical descriptions of optical performance and thus achieved the claimed function. Regarding claim 9-14, 16-20 , the dependent claims recite essentially the same limitations as those addressed above, and are rejected on the same basis . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and discloses variable grating parameters toward varying optical phase . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm. 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 Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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. /COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/763,328 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights