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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18875016 filed on 12/13/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application National Stage entry of PCT/US2023/068622, international filing date 06/16/2023 that claims priority from provisional application US 63353493 , filed 06/17/2022.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are not acceptable for examination purposes.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation regarding that 1-dimensional grating is configured to produce diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom with “two orthogonal diffraction angles” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently no drawings depict two orthogonal diffraction angles. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 and claim 8 recite the limitation for “a curved shape 1-dimensional grating configured to produce diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles” last three lines of the claim 1 and analogously “configuring a curved shape 1-dimensional grating to produce diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles” in last three lines of claim 8. However, this limitation is confusing for the following reasons: (i) It is unclear what is meant by the phrase curved “1-dimensional grating” that diffracts incident light with 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles? Specifically, a regular 1-D grating including straight lines is considered as 1-dimensional grating, but adding curvature to the grating lines adds another dimension to the grating as the grating vector is not the same extending in one dimension across the grating. Therefore it is unclear what is meant by the term “1-dimensional grating” for the curved grating; (ii) Further, it is unclear what is meant by producing diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles, given that the incident light is diffracted and that light can originate from a light source. Moreover, the meaning of light diffraction with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angle is confusing, because it is unclear what “2-dimensional degree of freedom” is? How can a degree of freedom be considered two dimensional? Can the diffraction have 2 degrees of freedom, meaning that diffracted light can diffract at different angles? Lastly it is unclear what is meant by such diffraction that includes two orthogonal diffraction angles? What are these two angles orthogonal to, each other or some other element or aspect of the curved grating? For the purposes of examination the above limitations will be treated broadly, as best understood and given the specification, such that grating with curved grating lines reads on 1-dimensional grating” since it does not involve e.g. two crossed gratings; and that such curved grating configuration produces diffraction where diffracted light can be in but also out of plane defined by incident light and the normal of the grating, i.e. such that such diffracted light has components and angles (i.e. projections) along two orthogonal directions. It is suggested to amend the claim for clarity and if different meanings of the limitations are sought and to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 9-13 depend on claim 8 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al. (hereafter Yao) US 20240142775 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) an apparatus for highly efficient curved holographic aligned nonlinear grating elements (CHANGE) for high-resolution high-performance augmented and virtual reality (i.e. optical device head-up display (HUD), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) near-eye imaging system, see abstract, paragraphs [02-05, 08-23, 25-29, 35-43, 67-79,83-87, 90-110,161-174,181-188], e.g. examples 1-4, see Figs. 1,3-7,10-15), comprising:
a curved shape 1-dimensional grating configured to produce diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles (i.e. as curved diffraction grating optical element 102 with curved convex or concave stripes 1020(1022,1023) diffracting light from source projection system 101 configured to diffract incident source (101) light out of incident plane in different directions, with components along orthogonal directions and associated angles, e.g. paragraphs [67-79,83-87, 90-110,161-174,181-188], e.g. Figs. 1,3-4,7,10-15).
In regard to independent claim 8, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) a method for highly efficient curved holographic aligned nonlinear grating elements (CHANGE) for high-resolution high-performance augmented and virtual reality (i.e. optical device head-up display (HUD), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) near-eye imaging system and designing, see abstract, paragraphs [02-05, 08-23, 25-29, 35-43, 67-79,83-87, 90-110,161-174,181-188], e.g. examples 1-4, see Figs. 1,3-7,10,13-15) comprising:
configuring a curved shape 1-dimensional grating to produce diffraction of an incident source with a 2-dimensional degree of freedom including two orthogonal diffraction angles (i.e. as designing curved diffraction grating optical element 102 with curved convex or concave stripes 1020(1022,1023) diffracting light from source projection system 101 to diffract incident source (101) light out of incident plane in different directions, with components along orthogonal directions and associated angles, e.g. paragraphs [67-79,83-87, 90-110,161-174,181-188], e.g. Figs. 1,3-4,7,13-15).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) that the curved shape is configured/configuring in accordance with an by input angle of the incident source and output angle of the diffraction for each position of the CHANGE (i.e. as curvature of stripes 1020 and spacing is configured and designed for incident 102 light and different diffraction (output) angles, thereby facilitating imaging. e.g. paragraphs [90-98,84-87, 161-174,181-188], e.g. Figs. 1,3-4,7,1013-15).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) that each position has different grating direction (x) and different period (i.e. as due to varying curvature radius of stripes 1020 and varying spacing/grating period between the stripes 1020, paragraphs [90-98,84-87, 161-174,181-188], e.g. Figs. 3,7,10,13-15).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) comprising two of the curved shape 1-dimensional grating (i.e. as two curved gratings 102, e.g. two of sub- gratings S1, S2, S3 paragraphs [164-177, 67-79,83-87, 90-110], Figs. 1,11-12), configuring, wherein one of the two curved shape 1- dimensional gratings is configured as an in-coupling diffractive metasurface optical element (MOE) (i.e. as one of S1, S2,S3 is both receiving, coupling light from source projector 101 and transmitting, reflecting light from 101 to human eye 103, where curved grating had plurality of resonance elements 10221 with stripes 1020, hence forming metasurface on 102 optical element, e.g. paragraphs [69-79,83-87, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12) and the other of the two curved shape 1-dimensional gratings is configured as an out-coupling diffractive MOE (i.e. as another of S1, S2,S3 is also both receiving, coupling light from source projector 101 and transmitting, reflecting light from 101 to human eye 103, where curved grating had plurality of resonance elements 10221 with stripes 1020, hence forming metasurface on 102 optical element, e.g. paragraphs [69-79,83-87, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12, note limitation are treated broadly given that there is no structures or medium for in/out coupling i.e. coupling into or out from).
Regarding claim 7, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) an apparatus for highly efficient curved holographic aligned nonlinear grating elements (CHANGE) for high-resolution high-performance augmented and virtual reality comprising (i.e. optical device head-up display (HUD), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) near-eye imaging system, see abstract, paragraphs [02-05, 08-23, 25-29, 35-43, 67-79,83-87, 90-110,161-174,181-188], e.g. examples 1-4, see Figs. 1,3-7,10-15):
a plurality of the cascaded CHANGE elements curved shape 1-dimensional gratings of claim 1 (e.g. 1020, Figs. 10-12) that are implemented cascaded and configured for a multiwavelength source (i.e. as plurality of curved gratings 102, as cascaded sub- gratings S1, S2, S3 configured for different wavelengths e.g. red, green, blue, implementing color diffractive imaging, paragraphs [164-177, 67-79,83-87, 90-110], Figs. 1,11-12).
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 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (hereafter Yao) US 20240142775 A1 in view of Kocabas et al. (hereafter Kocabas) US 20250020847 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) that the in-coupling diffractive MOE, is configured to receive and diffract a collimated display input source (i.e. as one of S1, S2,S3 is receiving and diffracting collimated light from source projector 101, e.g. paragraphs [69-79,83-87, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12) and wherein the out-coupling diffractive MOE is configured to magnify the input source for both 2-dimensional directions (i.e. as another of S1, S2,S3 beside receiving light from source projector 101 is transmitting and diffracting reflecting light from 101 to human eye 103, while 102 is also beam-focusing and has different focal powers for two mutually orthogonal directions and fully capable for magnifying images from image projector source, see e.g. paragraphs [84, 86, 23, 69-79,83-87, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12). But Yao is silent that in-coupling diffractive MOE, configured to guide the input source into waveguide glass (i.e. as curved 102 gratings are not part of a waveguide based AR,VR optical device, e.g. paragraphs [69-79,83-87, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12).
However, Kocabas teaches in the same field of invention of a metasurface waveguide for display unit (see e.g. Figs. 1-5, title, abstract, paragraphs [02-04, 28-38, 40-52], as AR, VR systems based on waveguide substrate with meta-grating in/out-couplers) and further teaches that in-coupling diffractive MOE configured to guide the input source into waveguide glass (i.e. as the AR, VR display systems based on and including waveguide glass substrate 102A, 102B with meta-grating in-couplers 104A, 104B and out-couplers 106A,B, paragraphs [30-40], e.g. Figs. 1A-B,2,3, as AR,VR displays with waveguide architecture, with pair of grating in/out-couplers to couple the light from the display into/out of the waveguide, are attractive due to their inherently compact form factor, their ability to provide eyebox expansion without the need for additional bulky optics, and are attractive over beamsplitter/combiner displays needing increased the optical path length from the display to the eye, correction for optical aberrations, distortions that require sophisticated freeform optics leading to larger spatial footprint, e.g. paragraphs [29-35]).
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 and adapt the optical device head-up display (AR, VR, HUD), with curved diffraction gratings as combiner type display of Yao to a AR,VR display with waveguide architecture according to teachings of Kocabas, using pair of gratings as in/out-couplers to couple the light from the display into/out of the waveguide, in order to provide waveguide architecture AR, VR display which is attractive due to inherently compact form factor, ability to provide eyebox expansion without the need for additional bulky optics, and are attractive over beamsplitter/combiner displays needing increased the optical path length from the display to the eye, correction for optical aberrations and distortions that require sophisticated freeform optics leading to larger spatial footprint (Kocabas e.g. paragraphs [29-35]).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Yao teaches (see Figs. 1-15) that in an the out-coupling diffractive MOE is configured to provide a magnified 2D image at an external eyebox (i.e. due to combination as another of S1, S2,S3 (102) used as outcoupling diffractive MOE, and provides beam-focusing and with different focal powers for two mutually orthogonal directions of the source image at the eyebox, i.e. hence capable for magnifying images at the user’s eye, eyebox, e.g. paragraphs [84, 86, 89,145, 23, 90-110,111-122, 161-177], Figs. 1, 11-12, and Kocabas as output meta grating provides eyebox expansion, paragraphs [29-33,37]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. US 20200241353 A1 (see e.g. Figs. 1-6 and their descriptions) and Fattal US 20190018186 A1 (see e.g. Figs. 1-6) also disclose features of instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights