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 .
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 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 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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–8, 10–12, 18, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0293869 to Ayres et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Ayres discloses (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8 and their description, including at least paragraphs [0096]–[0106]) a waveguide (e.g., 800-a) comprising: a first substrate (e.g., 805-a) comprising an exit pupil expander (not explicitly stated, but Fig. 8A illustrates entry light 825-a expanding along the y direction to travel in the x direction, reasonably suggesting an “exit pupil expander”); and a second substrate (e.g., 810-a) overlapping the first substrate (Figs. 8A/B), the second substrate comprising an outcoupler (where paragraph [0104] teaches that second waveguide 810-b may include a second light coupling device, and paragraph [0097] teaches that a second light coupling device may be an output coupler, reasonably suggesting an outcoupler, also where an outcoupler would have been obvious as known means for extracting the light from the waveguide to allow the light to pass to the next stage of the device).
Regarding Claim 2, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 1, further comprising one or more facets to direct light from the first substrate to the second substrate (e.g., roof prism 725 of embodiment in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Ayres would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more facets comprise reflective facets comprising a mirror coating (where supplementing the reflective effect of roof prism 725 further using a mirror coating would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 4, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 2, wherein the one or more facets comprise diffractive or holographic gratings (e.g., paragraphs [0045] and [0050], suggesting conventional diffractive or holographic gratings).
Regarding Claim 5, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 1, further comprising a partition element between the first substrate and the second substrate (e.g., polarization altering element 815-a).
Regarding Claim 6, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 5, wherein the partition element comprises a lower-refractive index than the first substrate and the second substrate (not explicitly discussed by Ayres, but obvious as a means for extracting light from a total internal reflection waveguide, Figs. 8A/B, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 7, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 5, wherein the partition element comprises an airgap (e.g., embodiment of Fig. 7, gap between waveguides).
Regarding Claim 8, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 5, wherein the partition element comprises a solid material (e.g., polarization altering element 815-a).
Regarding Claim 10, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the exit pupil expander expands light in a first direction and the outcoupler outcouples light from the waveguide in a second direction different from the first direction (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8A/B).
Regarding Claim 11, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 10, wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the second direction (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8A/B).
Regarding Claim 12, Ayres would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the first substrate overlaps the second substrate when viewed from a direction at which the outcoupler outcouples light out of the waveguide (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8A/B).
Regarding Claim 18, Ayres would have rendered obvious (e.g., Figs. 1, 7, and 8 and their description, including at least paragraphs [0096]–[0106]) an eyewear display comprising: one or more lenses (illustrated, though not labeled, in Fig. 1) comprising an optical combiner, wherein the optical combiner comprises a waveguide (e.g., 800-a, Fig. 8A) comprising: a first substrate (e.g., 805-a) comprising an exit pupil expander (not explicitly stated, but Fig. 8A illustrates entry light 825-a expanding along the y direction to travel in the x direction, reasonably suggesting an “exit pupil expander”); and a second substrate (e.g., 810-a) overlapping the first substrate (Figs. 8A/B), the second substrate comprising an outcoupler (where paragraph [0104] teaches that second waveguide 810-b may include a second light coupling device, and paragraph [0097] teaches that a second light coupling device may be an output coupler, reasonably suggesting an outcoupler, also where an outcoupler would have been obvious as known means for extracting the light from the waveguide to allow the light to pass to the next stage of the device).
Regarding Claim 20, Ayres would have rendered obvious the eyewear display of claim 18, wherein the waveguide comprises: one or more facets to direct light from the first substrate to the second substrate (e.g., roof prism 725 of embodiment in Fig. 7); and a partition element between the first substrate and the second substrate (e.g., polarization altering element 815-a).
Regarding Claim 21, Ayres would have rendered obvious the eyewear display of claim 18, wherein the partition element comprises a lower-refractive index than the first substrate and the second substrate (not explicitly discussed by Ayres, but obvious as a means for extracting light from a total internal reflection waveguide, Figs. 8A/B, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 22, Ayres would have rendered obvious the eyewear display of claim 18, further comprising a frame to hold the one or more lenses (illustrated, not labeled, Fig. 1; also a common configuration for glasses, to have a frame hold lenses).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayres in view of WO2023273991A1 to Tang (machine translated provided with this Office action).
Regarding Claim 9, Ayres does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition element comprises a polarization beam splitter.
Tang teaches using a reflective polarizer 62 (which splits light based on polarization) at the interface between two waveguides 30/50 to control polarization of the light “to form a better image quality” (e.g., Fig. 2 and page 8 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Ayres such that the partition element comprises a polarization beam splitter, as suggested by Tang, in order to improve image quality.
Claims 13–16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayres in view U.S. Patent No. 10,108,011 to Nikkhoo.
Regarding Claim 13, Aryes discloses (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8 and their description, including at least paragraphs [0096]–[0106]) an optical combiner comprising: a waveguide (e.g., 800-a) comprising: a first substrate (e.g., 805-a) comprising an exit pupil expander (not explicitly stated, but Fig. 8A illustrates entry light 825-a expanding along the y direction to travel in the x direction, reasonably suggesting an “exit pupil expander”); and a second substrate (e.g., 810-a) overlapping the first substrate (Figs. 8A/B), the second substrate comprising an outcoupler (where paragraph [0104] teaches that second waveguide 810-b may include a second light coupling device, and paragraph [0097] teaches that a second light coupling device may be an output coupler, reasonably suggesting an outcoupler, also where an outcoupler would have been obvious as known means for extracting the light from the waveguide to allow the light to pass to the next stage of the device).
Ayres does not explicitly disclose a first lens layer and a second lens layer; and the waveguide disposed between the first lens layer and the second lens layer.
Nikkhoo discloses a waveguide, and teaches forming the waveguide between first lens layer 116 and second lens layer 118, where the lenses act both as protection for the waveguide, and to implement a user’s eyeglass prescription (e.g., Fig. 2B and col. 5, lines 40–47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Ayres to include a first lens layer and a second lens layer; and the waveguide disposed between the first lens layer and the second lens layer, as suggested by Nikkhoo, in order to protect the waveguide and provide an optical prescription for a user.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ayres and Nikkhoo would have rendered obvious the optical combiner of claim 13, wherein the waveguide comprises one or more facets to direct light from the first substrate to the second substrate (e.g., roof prism 725 of embodiment of Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ayres and Nikkhoo would have rendered obvious the waveguide of claim 13, wherein the waveguide comprises a partition element disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (e.g., polarization altering element 815-a).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Ayres and Nikkhoo would have rendered obvious the optical combiner of claim 15, wherein the partition element comprises a lower-refractive index than the first substrate and the second substrate (not explicitly discussed by Ayres, but obvious as a means for extracting light from a total internal reflection waveguide, Figs. 8A/B, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 19, Aryes does not explicitly disclose the eyewear display of claim 18, the optical combiner further comprising a first lens layer and a second lens layer, wherein the waveguide is disposed between the first lens layer and the second lens layer.
Nikkhoo discloses a waveguide, and teaches forming the waveguide between first lens layer 116 and second lens layer 118, where the lenses act both as protection for the waveguide, and to implement a user’s eyeglass prescription (e.g., Fig. 2B and col. 5, lines 40–47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Ayres to include a first lens layer and a second lens layer; and the waveguide disposed between the first lens layer and the second lens layer, as suggested by Nikkhoo, in order to protect the waveguide and provide an optical prescription for a user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayres in view of Nikkhoo and Tang.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ayres and Nikkhoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition element comprises a polarization beam splitter.
Tang teaches using a reflective polarizer 62 (which splits light based on polarization) at the interface between two waveguides 30/50 to control polarization of the light “to form a better image quality” (e.g., Fig. 2 and page 8 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Ayres and Nikkhoo such that the partition element comprises a polarization beam splitter, as suggested by Tang, in order to improve image quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights