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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on12/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because multiple reference characters have both been used to designate the same structures in the drawings. The paired sets are as follows:
1200, 12XX
1300, 1310, 1030
1410, 1040
1420, 1044, 1400
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims recite “a set of … beams” without further clarifying or contextual language defining the phrasing as singular, plural, or both. For the purposes of examination, a set would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be singular and thus “a set of … beams” is understood to be one or more beams.
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.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “motif” in claims 8 and 10-11 is used by the claim to mean something structurally related to a grating, while there is no accepted meaning in the field of optics. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites “lx” without defining “x” as either an ordinal indicator, indication of direction, or another meaning.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 defines two lengths as “w2” and it is unclear if the first and second widths are required to be equal or if there is a typographical error in labeling widths, as the Specifications does not provide for equal width embodiments explicitly.
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 1-5 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2019/0187474 to Bhargava, et al. (hereinafter Bhargava) in view of
Regarding claims 1 and 13, 15, 16, Bhargava discloses a see-through, portable display structure (Figs. 20A-20N), comprising: a waveguide (eyepiece waveguide 2000, Fig. 20A); an in-coupling structure (in-coupling grating region 2040, Fig. 20A) configured to couple a set of input beams into the waveguide as a set of in-coupled beams (Fig. 20A) associated with a set of in-coupled k-vectors defining a first domain in k-space in an annular guided propagation domain associated with the waveguide ([0298]-[0321]); a diffractive exit pupil expansion structure (MPE region 2050 may be composed of an array of scattering features arranged in a 2D lattice) configured to receive the set of incoupled beams and to diffract the set of incoupled beams to form at least three sets of guided beams (zeroth order and “2D grating shown in FIG. 20B is also associated with harmonics of the first fundamental grating vector G. These include −G and higher-order harmonics, such as 2G, −2G, etc.”, [0298]-[0321]) associated with at least three sets of k-vectors lying in at least three domains including the first domain; and a diffractive retardation and out-coupling structure (EPE region 2060 and “one or more diffractive mirrors 2070 around the peripheral edge of the waveguide. The diffractive mirrors 2070 can receive light which propagates through the MPE/EPE regions and exits from the edge of the waveguide 2000. The diffractive mirrors can then diffract that light back into the MPE/EPE regions so that it can be used to contribute to projection of the image from the eyepiece waveguide 2000”; [0327]-[0329]) configured to receive from the exit pupil expansion structure a diffracted set of beams associated with a diffracted set of k-vectors lying in one of the at least three domains, the diffractive retardation and out-coupling structure comprising an out-coupling grating configured to couple light out of the waveguide as a set of output beams ([0298]-[0321],[0327]-[0329]); wherein the retardation and out-coupling structure is configured to diffract the diffracted set of beams to form at least one returning set of beams guided towards the exit pupil expansion structure ([0327]-[0329]) and associated with at least one returning set of k-vectors, each of the at least one returning set of k-vectors lying in any other of the at least three domains ([0298]-[0321],[0327]-[0329]).
Regarding claim 2, Bhargava discloses the exit pupil expansion structure comprises a two-dimensional exit pupil expansion grating for diffracting the set of incoupled beams to form the at least three sets of guided beams (“MPE region 2050 may be composed of an array of scattering features arranged in a 2D lattice”; [0300]-[0321]).
Regarding claim 3, Bhargava discloses the exit pupil expansion grating is configured to form each of the at least three sets of guided beams by zeroth-order diffraction, by first-order diffraction, or by combined first-order diffraction (Fig. 20B-20H, [0234]-[0235], [0300]-[0321]).
Regarding claim 4, Bhargava discloses the guided propagation domain surrounds a coupling domain, the one of the at least three domains is arranged toward a first k-space direction from the coupling domain, and the other of the at least three domains is arranged towards a second k-space direction opposite to the first k-space direction from the coupling domain (Fig. 20B-20H, [0300]-[0321]).
Regarding claim 5, Bhargava discloses the at least one returning set of beams comprises a first returning set of beams, and the retardation and out-coupling structure comprises a retardation grating configured to diffract the diffracted set of beams such that the first returning set of beams and a continuing set of beams are formed and guided towards the exit pupil expansion structure and the out-coupling grating, respectively (Figs. 20A, 20L).
Regarding claim 12, Bhargava discloses the at least three sets of guided beams comprise a first set of guided beams, a second set of guided beams, a third set of guided beams, and a fourth set of guided beams (Fig. 20B-20H, [0300]-[0321]).
Regarding claim 14 , Bhargava discloses a scanner-based optical engine ([0113]), e.g., a laser-scanning optical engine, for directing the set of input beams to the in-coupling structure ([0113]).
Regarding claim 17 , Bhargava discloses display device implemented as a vehicular display device (Fig. 20N). Display is capable of use in a vehicle.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of WO 2022/017171 to Ma, et al. (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 6, Bhargava discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the retardation grating is implemented as a one-dimensional grating and configured to form the first returning set of beams by first-order diffraction and the continuing set of beams by zeroth-order diffraction
Ma discloses the retardation grating is implemented as a one-dimensional grating and configured to form the first returning set of beams by first-order diffraction and the continuing set of beams by zeroth-order diffraction (“When the period of the first reflection grating 4 is half of the period of the outcoupling grating 3 , the diffraction efficiency of the first-order diffracted light is set to be the largest among the diffraction orders, so its vector size is equal to the vector size of the coupling out grating 3”; Fig. 3 and corresponding discussion).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to diffract first order light by a wavelength grating as taught by Ma with the system as disclosed by Bhargava. The motivation would have been to “[improve] the overall light energy utilization rate of the waveguide assembly”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 11,668,931 to Leportier, et al. (*hereinafter Leportier).
Regarding claim 7, Bhargava discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the at least one returning set of beams comprises a second returning set of beams, and the out-coupling grating is configured to diffract light towards the exit pupil expansion structure as the second returning set of beams.
Leportier discloses the at least one returning set of beams comprises a second returning set of beams (e.g. 372 in Fig. 3), and the out-coupling grating is configured to diffract light towards the exit pupil expansion structure as the second returning set of beams (col. 9, ln. 20-col. 10, ln. 13; and col. 6, ln. 57-col. 9, ln. 19 for context).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a grating designed to efficiently outcouple first order light and minimize necessary second order, back-diffracted light as taught by Leportier with the system as disclosed by Bhargava. The motivation would have been to increase efficiency and reduce ghost images (col. 9, ln. 20-col. 10, ln. 13; and col. 6, ln. 57-col. 9, ln. 19 for context).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 18, Bhargava discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a vehicle comprising a vehicular display device in accordance with claim 17.
Examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that waveguide based display systems are old and well-known as integrated systems within vehicles. Such displays are often incorporated into windscreens for the purposes of providing driver information as an overlay on driving scenes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights