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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “progagates”, in line 18, should be changed to read “propagates”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the DOE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (US 20140168260 A1) in view of BAE Systems (EP 2244114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien et al. discloses an augmented reality (AR) display system for delivering augmented reality content to a user (see-through, near-to-eye display (NED) unit may be used to display virtual imagery mixed with real-world objects in a physical environment, paras. 0001, 0019), comprising:
a stacked waveguide assembly having a plurality of diffraction structures that are stacked together to receive light associated with one or more frames of image data and direct the light to the user's eyes (NED units may include a stack of multiple waveguides, with each waveguide assigned to a wavelength component, para. 0002),
wherein each diffraction structure comprises a waveguide substrate (waveguide 140 may be formed of a thin planar sheet of glass, though it may be formed of plastic or other materials in further embodiments including plastic and silica, para. 0025),
a surface grating (Waveguide 140 may have two or more diffraction gratings, including an input diffraction grating 144 which couples light rays into the waveguide 140, and an exit diffraction grating 148 which diffracts light rays out of the waveguide 140, para. 0025),
a light injection location at one end of the diffraction structure (an input diffraction grating 144 which couples light rays into the waveguide 140, para. 0025),
O’Brien et al. does not expressly disclose an underlayer disposed between the waveguide substrate and the surface grating, and wherein the underlayer has a non-uniform underlayer thickness.
BAE Systems teaches that one or more layers 34 of dielectric material (Figure 2(b)) are applied conformably to the surface of the grating, para. 0029 and wherein the conformal dielectric coating or layer 60 (Figure 6(b)) is applied to the grating in a thickness which increases in the direction of propagation of the light, para. 0034.
O’Brien et al. in view of BAE Systems are analogous art because they are from the similar problem solving area of waveguide composition. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the underlayer between the waveguide substrate and the surface grating, and an underlayer having a non-uniform underlayer thickness of BAE Systems to the stacked waveguide assembly of O’Brien et al. in order to obtain a particular waveguide structure. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the design and function of a waveguide assembly.
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of image-generating sources to inject the image data (NED units include a light engine for generating an image, para. 0001) into each of the plurality of diffraction structures within the stacked waveguide assembly (each waveguide 140 may be tuned, or matched, to a different wavelength band. Thus, as light is projected from microdisplay 120 into the optical element, light of a given wavelength will couple into a waveguide and be reflected back to the eye box 130, while light of other wavelengths will pass through that waveguide, para. 0024).
Regarding claim 3, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 1, where each diffraction structure further comprises a top layer over the surface grating (a conformal layer 34 of titanium dioxide approximately 70nm thick is first applied to the grating 16, para. 0033; layer 36 of silver approximately 100nm thick is then overlaid onto the layer 34, para. 0033).
Regarding claim 4, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the top layer forms an interstitial layer for stacking of each diffraction structure (Each pair of adjacent waveguides 140 may be separated by an air gap including one or more spacer elements, para. 0039).
Regarding claim 5, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the interstitial layer is configured to a size of an air gap between adjacent diffraction structures (frame 112, which supports each waveguide 140 separated by a small air gap, para. 0027; the spacer element 160, so long as they may be applied at a thickness to match the air gap, and thereafter transformed into a solid to maintain the air gap thickness, para. 0038).
Regarding claim 6, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the interstitial layer is configured to provide a support structure for adjacent diffraction structures (spacer elements maintain the spacing between the waveguides in the optical element to prevent damage to the waveguides due to mechanical perturbations, paras. 0003, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 3, further comprising a top layer grating on the top layer (a conforming metallic reflecting layer 36 (Figure 2 (c)) is applied to the rear surface of the dielectric layer 34, para. 0029).
Regarding claim 8, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the waveguide substrate, the underlayer, and the surface grating are composed of different materials (a conformal layer 34 of titanium dioxide approximately 70nm thick is first applied to the grating 16. A layer 36 of silver, para. 0033).
Regarding claim 9, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least two of the waveguide substrate, the underlayer, and the surface grating are composed of the same material (spacer elements 160 may be made of glass, silica or plastic, and may be the same material as the waveguides 140, to prevent thermal mismatch, para. 0028).
Regarding claim 10, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the waveguide substrate, the underlayer, and the surface grating are composed of at least one of polymer material, sapphire, or glass (may be formed of a thin planar sheet of glass, though it may be formed of plastic or other materials, para. 0025).
Regarding claim 12, O’Brien et al. discloses the system of claim 1, embodied as a head-mountable wearable system (see-through, near-to-eye display (NED) unit may be used to display virtual imagery mixed with real-world objects in a physical environment, paras. 0001, 0019).
Regarding claim 13, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the waveguide substrate has a waveguide refractive index, and the underlayer has an underlayer diffractive index that is different from the waveguide refractive index (The substrate 52 is laid onto the lower substrate 50 and cemented thereto by optical cement 62 (Figure 6(c)) along its whole length so as to be optically continuous therewith. The choice of the refractive index of the cement will depend on the range of angles in the propagating light rays within the waveguide, the refractive index of the substrates 50, 52 the refractive index of the replication material and the refractive indices of the range of available optical cements with suitable optical properties, para. 0034).
Regarding claim 14, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the surface grating has a surface grating refractive index (metallic reflecting layer 36 may be silver, gold, aluminium or another material having a complex refractive index, para. 0029).
Regarding claim 15, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 14, wherein at least two of the waveguide refractive index, the underlayer refractive index, and the surface grating refractive index are equal to each other at a point along the length of the diffraction structure (waveguide material of n ≈ 1.5, cement having 1.5 ≤n≤ 1.6 would be suitable, para. 0030).
Regarding claim 16, BAE Systems discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the waveguide refractive index, the underlayer refractive index, and the surface grating refractive index are equal to each other at the point along the length of the diffraction structure (choice of the refractive index of the cement will depend on the range of angles in the propagating light rays within the waveguide, the refractive index of the substrates 50, 52, para. 0034).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (US 20140168260 A1) in view of BAE Systems (EP 2244114 A1) and further in view of Schowengerdt (US 20150205126 A1).
Regarding claim 11, O’Brien et al./ BAE Systems does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the DOE is switchable between an ON state and an OFF state.
Schowengerdt teaches a head-mounted display system wherein one or more DOEs are switchable between "on" states in which they actively diffract, and "off" states in which they do not significantly diffract, see para. 0081.
O’Brien et al./BAE Systems in view of Schowengerdt are analogous art because they are from the similar problem solving area of waveguide composition. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the switchable diffractive optical element of Schowengerdt to the stacked waveguide assembly of O’Brien et al./BAE Systems in order to obtain a particular waveguide structure. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the design and function of a waveguide assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record, does not disclose “wherein the waveguide substrate has a waveguide refractive index, and the underlayer has an underlayer diffractive index that is different from the waveguide refractive index, and wherein the underlayer has a non-uniform underlayer refractive index that changes from being relatively similar to the waveguide refractive index to being increasingly different from the waveguide refractive index as distance is increased from a light injection location, such that the non-uniform refractive index of the underlayer at least partially compensates for the decrease in intensity of the light as it propagates from the light injection location along the length of the diffraction structure.” (in combination with the other claimed limitations and/or features), as claimed in independent claim 17.
The closest prior art of record, does not disclose “wherein the surface grating has a surface grating refractive index, and wherein the waveguide refractive index, the underlayer refractive index, and the surface grating refractive index are different from each other at all points along the length of the diffraction structure." (in combination with the other claimed limitations and/or features), as claimed in independent claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J LETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6 ET.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/THOMAS J LETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611