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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,2, in the submission filed 3/16/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 3-13 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-13.
Drawings
The drawings with15 Sheets of Figs.1-16C received on 3/16/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising a plurality of facets”. It is not clear whether the facets are located within the display on the light-guide or inside the light-guide. The current specification at page 9, discloses that the facets are deployed within the LOE. Hence, for the purposes of examination, the facets are considered to be located within the LOE.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-9,11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wall et al (US 2017/0235142 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wall teaches (figs 1-5) a near-eye display (near-eye display, para 2), for projecting an image to an eye of an observer, the near-eye display comprising:
a light-guide optical element (LOE) (optical waveguide 100, para 16, fig 1, 100B/100R/100G, fig 2, para 35) having first (second surface 110, para 18) and second major (first surface 108, para 18) external surfaces that are planar and mutually parallel (as in fig 1),
wherein the second major external surface (first surface 108, para 18) is configured to face the eye of the observer (human eye 214, fig 2, para 35);
a coupling-in arrangement (input -coupler 112, para 17) configured to couple into the LOE (optical waveguide 100) so as to propagate within the LOE by internal reflection at the first and second major external surfaces (110, 108); and
a coupling-out arrangement (output coupler 116, para 17) configured to couple the illumination out of the LOE towards the eye of the observer (human eye 214, fig 2, para 35),
wherein the first major external surface (second surface 110, para 18) is coated with a multi-layer coating (coating 422, fig 4, “coatings 422R, 422G and 422B”, para 60, “The coating 422B can additionally, or alternatively, be applied to the other major surface 110 of the waveguide 422B. The coating 422G can additionally, or alternatively, be applied to the other major surface 110 of the waveguide 422G. The coating 422R can additionally, or alternatively, be applied to the other major surface 110 of the waveguide 422R”, para 64, “Each of the coatings 422 can be a multi-layer coating that includes at least ten layers of dielectric material”, para 66)
configured to provide anti-reflective properties (low reflectance, para 65) for visible light incident at angles of incidence smaller than 40 degrees and to provide high reflectivity for at least a first polarization of visible light incident at angles of incidence greater than 30 degrees (“Each coating 422 applied to one (or both) of the major surfaces (108 and/or 110) of a waveguide 100 can have a preferential linear polarization for which the coating is configured to have a low reflectance (e.g., of no more than 2 percent) for light below a low threshold angle (e.g., of no more than 25 degrees relative to a normal) and a high reflectance (e.g., of at least 50 percent) for light above a high threshold angle (e.g., of at least 30 degrees relative to the normal)”, para 65).
(The instant application at page 15 does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art Wall discloses the coating providing high reflectance for incident angles of at least 30 degrees relative to the normal. Hence the coating would perform the same function of high reflectance for the entire range of incident angles from 30 degrees to almost 90 degrees to the normal. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).)
Regarding Claim 2, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the second major external surface (first surface 108, para 18) is coated with a multi-layer coating (“major planer surfaces 108 of the waveguides 100R, 100G and 100B being coated, respectively, with coatings 422R, 422G and 422B”, para 60) configured to provide anti-reflective properties for visible light incident at angles of incidence smaller than 40 degrees and to provide low reflectivity for a second polarization of visible light perpendicular to the first polarization incident at angles of incidence between 70 degrees and 85 degrees (“Each coating 422 applied to one (or both) of the major surfaces (108 and/or 110) of a waveguide 100 can have a preferential linear polarization for which the coating is configured to have a low reflectance (e.g., of no more than 2 percent) for light below a low threshold angle (e.g., of no more than 25 degrees relative to a normal) and a high reflectance (e.g., of at least 50 percent) for light above a high threshold angle (e.g., of at least 30 degrees relative to the normal)”, “The preferential linear polarization orientation can either be a P linear polarization orientation, or an S linear polarization orientation, which orientations are orthogonal relative to one another”, para 65). (The high reflectance for the angles of incidence 70-85 degrees for a preferential polarization such as S polarization, of the coating indicates that the reflectance is lower for the other non-preferential polarizations such as the orthogonal P polarization for the same angles of incidence 70-85 degrees.)
Regarding Claim 3, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the anti-reflective properties comprise a reflectivity that is less than 5% (“the coating is configured to have a low reflectance (e.g., of no more than 2 percent)”, para 65).
Regarding Claim 4, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the anti-reflective properties comprise a reflectivity that is less than 3% (“the coating is configured to have a low reflectance (e.g., of no more than 2 percent)”, para 65).
Regarding Claim 5, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1, wherein the high reflectivity comprises a reflectivity greater than 70% (“high reflectance (e.g., of at least 50 percent) for light above a high threshold angle (e.g., of at least 30 degrees relative to the normal)”, para 65, “The plotted line 516, which corresponds to light traveling at 35 degrees relatively to the normal of the major planar surface 108 of the waveguide 100, illustrates that light at such a high angle (that is even closer to the critical angle) has an average reflectance ranging from about 25% to about 75% within the visible wavelength range from 400 nm to 650 nm”, para 69, for visible light at about 580nm, reflectance is greater than 70% as in fig 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the visible light corresponds to external illumination (light source assembly 210, para 35) or ambient light.
Regarding Claim 8, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the first polarization is an S polarization (“The preferential linear polarization orientation can either be a P linear polarization orientation, or an S linear polarization orientation, which orientations are orthogonal relative to one another”, para 65, first polarization is considered to be S polarization).
Regarding Claim 9, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the second polarization is a P polarization (“The preferential linear polarization orientation can either be a P linear polarization orientation, or an S linear polarization orientation, which orientations are orthogonal relative to one another”, para 65, second polarization is considered to be P polarization).
Regarding Claim 11, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
further comprising a support arrangement (“Where a see-through mixed reality display device system is implemented as head-mounted display (HMD) glasses including a frame, the display engine 204 can be located to the side of the frame so that it sits near to a user's temple”, para 45) configured to support said LOE (optical waveguide 100, para 16, fig 1, 100B/100R/100G, fig 2, para 35) relative to a head of the observer with the second major external surface (first surface 108, para 18) facing the eye of the observer (human eye 214, fig 2, para 35)
Regarding Claim 12, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
further comprising an image projector (“The imaging device 206 of the display engine 204 can be implemented using a transmissive projection technology”, para 41) configured to produce the illumination corresponding to the image (“a human eye 214 that is viewing the image (as a virtual image)”, para 35).
Regarding Claim 13, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 12,
wherein the image projector (“imaging device 206”, para 41) is coupled with the coupling-in arrangement (input -coupler 112, para 17) (as in fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al (US 2017/0235142 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1,
wherein the high reflectivity comprises a reflectivity greater than 90% (“high reflectance (e.g., of at least 50 percent) for light above a high threshold angle (e.g., of at least 30 degrees relative to the normal)”, para 65).
However, Wall does not specifically teach the high reflectivity comprises a reflectivity greater than 90%.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of high reflectivity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at page 15 does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses greater than 50%. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Wall to have the claimed range of reflectivity for the purposes of reducing outside glare and ghost images due to spurious light.
Claim(s) 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al (US 2017/0235142 A1) in view of Amitai et al (US 2016/0341964 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Wall teaches the near-eye display of claim 1.
However, Wall does not teach
further comprising a plurality of facets with coatings thereon configured to suppress reflection for high-angle rays.
Wall and Amitai are related as LOEs.
Amitai teaches (fig 17)
further comprising a plurality of facets (array of selectively reflecting surfaces 22, para 92) with coatings (“all the partially reflective surfaces are exploiting isotropic angular sensitive thin film coatings”, para 92) thereon configured to suppress reflection for high-angle rays (“With angles higher than α.max, the rays are reflected from the substrate surface before arriving at the reflecting surface 12. Hence, the reflecting surface 12 will be illuminated at an undesired direction and ghost images will appear”, para 56, “In order to prevent undesired reflections and ghost images, it is important that the reflectance be negligible for the rays that impinge on the surface having the second direction 28. The desired discrimination between the two incident directions can be achieved by exploiting the fact that the undesired direction meets the surface after the ray has transferred the surface in the desired direction. Two solutions to this requirement, both exploiting angular sensitivity of thin film coatings were previously proposed”, para 65, “wherein all the partially reflective surfaces are exploiting isotropic angular sensitive thin film coatings”, para 92, this indicates that the partially reflecting surfaces have a coating which prevents undesired high-angle rays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LOE of Wall to include the facets of Amitai for the purpose of using a compact setup which suppresses ghost images (para 62, 92).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amitai et al (US 10,564,430) teaches an LOE with facets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 ALLEN can be reached on 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights