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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on August 20, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1.
Claims 5-8 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that elected species Figure 8 does not disclose a straight portion. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
Claims 1-4, and 9-17 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Miyairi et al (US 2024/0219732 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by O’Brien et al (US 2014/0168260 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Miyairi et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an electronic device that is comprised of a combiner, (please see Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B) that is comprised of certain lens/optical member which may serves as the light transmitting structure and a waveguide structure (13) arranged in an interior of the light transmitting structure, (please see the dotted line structure, Figure 1A-1C). The waveguide structure comprises a first spacer layer (27) or a low-refractive-index layer (please see paragraph [0110], a light guide plate (23aL) serves as the waveguide plate that arranged in sequence wherein each layer of waveguide plate comprising one or more coupling out regions (24aL and 24b2L). Miyairi et al teaches that the low-refractive layer is less than a refractive index of the wave or light guide plate, (please see paragraph [0110]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the spacer or the low-refractive index layer is a dielectric layer. This reference also does not teach explicitly to include a second dielectric layer.
O’Brien et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display device that is comprised of a stack of multiple waveguides (1401, 1402 to 140n, Figure 12) wherein a first spacer layer (160, Figures 4 and 12), a first waveguide (1402), a second spacer layer (16) and a second waveguide (1403) wherein the spacer layer may comprise silica (SiO2) that is a dielectric layer, (please see paragraph [0028]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of O’Brien et al to modify the waveguide structure to include a stack of multiple waveguides specifically including a second dielectric spacer and a second (and more) waveguide or light guide plate for the benefit of allowing stacked of multiple waveguides by utilized to provide image be displayed with more efficiency.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the light transmitting structure has a refractive power and wherein the light-transmitting structure covers the one or more coupling-out regions”.
As shown in Figure 1B, Miyairi et al teaches that the light transmitting structure (shown by dotted line) has a convex shape that implicitly includes refractive power and it covers the one or more coupling-out regions, (please see the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
247
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Miyairi et al teaches that the electronic device may be a head mounted display, (please see Figures 1A, 8A and 30 A-30C) with a lens element (753, Figure 30C) or refractive structure, (please see Figures 1A, 1B and 8A). The refractive structure or the lens element with a convex front surface that may have a preset of refractive power that is greater than or equal to a preset positive power or the refractive structure with concave rear surface that is less than or equal to a negative refractive power.
With regard to claim 3, Miyairi et al teaches the waveguide or light guide plate comprises one or more coupling-in regions (22aL, 22b2L, 22b1L).
With regard to claim 9, Miyairi et al teaches that the light guide plate or the waveguide plate is a planar waveguide plate, (please see Figure 2A). The multiple waveguides taught by O’Brien et al implies at least two waveguide layers stacked sequentially and a third dielectric space/layer may be arranged between the waveguide layers. O’Brien et al also teaches that the spacer layer may be affixed to the waveguide plate by using adhesive material or the spacers may comprise adhesive resin, (please see paragraph [0037] and [0038]).
With regard to claim 14, O’Brien et al teaches that the waveguide plate may comprise multiple waveguide layers, (1401 to 140n, please see Figure 12). The first dielectric spacer and the second dielectric spacer are respectively arranged on outermost ones of the waveguide layers, (please see Figures 4 and 12).
With regard to claim 15, O’Brien et al teaches that the waveguide plate may be made of glass, (please see paragraph [0025]). Both Miyairi et al and O’Brien et al teaches that the diffractive microstructures is formed on a surface of each layer of the waveguide plate corresponding to the coupling-out regions, (24aL, paragraph [0111] of Miyairi et al and 148, paragraph [0025] of O’Brien et al).
With regard to claim 16, Miyairi et al teaches that the diffractive microstructure may be volume hologram, (please see paragraph [0101]).
With regard to claim 17, both Miyairi et al and O’Brien et al teaches that the combiner with the waveguide structure is utilized in a display device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al and O’Brien et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Curtis et al (PN. 11,256,093).
The electronic device including a combiner taught by Miyairi et al in combination with the teachings of Curtis et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 4, these references do not teach explicitly that the waveguide plate comprises one or more deflecting regions. Curtis et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a combiner that comprises a waveguide plate wherein light distribution element (730, 740 or 750, Figure 9B or 1170, Figure 11B) serves as the deflection element may be included. The light incident to the coupling-in regions (700, 710, 720, Figure 9B or 1160, Figure 11B) transmits through the deflection region to propagate to the coupling-out regions (800, 810, 820, Figure 7B or 1180, Figure 11B).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Curtis et al to further include deflection region for the benefit of properly guiding the light from the coupling-in region to the coupling-out region and to allow expansion of the beam width with the extension of the deflecting regions.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al and O’Brien et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Rmanujam et al (US 2003/0137706 A1).
The electronic device including a combiner taught by Miyairi et al in combination with the teachings of Curtis et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 10, O’Brien et al teaches that the dielectric spacer (160) or the dielectric layer may be affixed with known adhesive material that is placed at top and bottom surface of the spacer element to affix the spacer to one or both waveguides with which the spacer lies in contact. O’Brien et al teaches that an air section located between the waveguide plates, (please see Figures 4 and 12).
These references however do not teach explicitly to include a protective layer arranged on one side of the adhesive layer that is opposite to the waveguide plate. Rmanujam et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a combiner comprises a waveguide pate wherein a protective layer (7, Figure 1A) is included to protect the multiple waveguides (3) and the spacer layers (4) therebetween. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Rmanujam et al to also include a protective layer to the combiner for the benefit of protecting the combiner from damage. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the protective layer is also connected to the adhesive and the dielectric spacer and to provide an air section therebetween, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a dielectric spacer layer with adhesive and therefore an air section between the waveguide plate and the protective layer to ensure total reflection of the light at the surface of the waveguide.
With regard to claim 11, Rmanujam et al teaches that protective layer may comprise polymer, (please see paragraph [0033]). Resin is an art well-known type of polymer material suitable for optical element. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the protective layer made of art well-known resin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 12, these references do not teach explicitly that the adhesive layer further comprises a functional member or a decorative member disposed in the air section, however such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing decorative effect to the combiner.
With regard to claim 13, Rmanujam et al teaches to include one protective layer (7, Figure 1A). It is within general level skilled in the art to modify the combiner to have the protective layer be connected to a dielectric spacer to provide an air section between the waveguide layer and the protective layer to ensure total reflection of the light at the surface of the waveguide plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the spacer taught by both cited Miyairi and O’Brien references, the dielectric layer recited in the claims interpreted in the elected species (Figure 8) is indeed spacers between the waveguide layers, (30a, 30b and 30c of Figure 8). The rejections therefore are proper.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights