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 .
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 16 are currently amended; claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-15 and 17-18 are original.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ dated 17 September 2024, 05 November 2024, and 01 July 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 subject matter of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Re: claim 1, the meaning of the limitation “in the first propagation direction” in line 12 is unclear. It is not clear as to which claim element(s) are disposed in or traveling in the first propagation direction. For the purpose of examining the claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
Re: claims 2-18, because they depend upon claim 1, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 11, the meaning of the limitations “Ha < Hc” and “Hb < Hc” are unclear. The meanings are unclear because the meaning of the terms Ha and Hb are not defined. For the purpose of examining the present application, the Ha has been construed as referring to the grating height of the first diffraction structure and Hb as referring to the grating height of the second diffraction structure.
Re: claim 13, the meaning of the limitation “V1” is not identified with sufficient specificity in the specification such that the specific dimension of the field of view region, such as height or width, has been specified. Similarly, it is not clear what dimension of the reproduction region is indicated by the limitation “E1”. Because the meaning of the claim in good faith could not be determined by the examiner, this claim has not been further examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niv (US 20090097122).
Re: claim 1, Niv discloses a light guide 14 (Figs. 3a, 3b) for guiding an image light ray which is output from a display element 121 and forms an image (paras 202, 203; Fig. 9), to a field of view region 26, 32 of a user as a virtual image (Fig. 3a, where the user is represented by eyes 25, 30), the light guide including: a body 14 having a plate shape (shape disclosed in Fig. 3a) ;an in-coupling region 13 formed at the body and allowing the image light ray to enter the body so that the image light ray propagates inside the body (capability disclosed in at least Fig 3b); and a reproduction region (Fig. 3a, the region including at least element 15) formed at the body and including a diffraction structure region 15 which constitutes a surface-relief diffraction grating 15 (para. 82 discloses diffraction grating; Figs. 3a, 3b, 6-8) dividing an image light ray 16, 21 propagating in a first propagation direction intersecting a thickness direction of the body into a plurality of image light rays propagating in a second propagation direction intersecting the first propagation direction (capability & propagation directions disclosed in at least Fig. 5b & para. 181), the diffraction structure region 15 having a first region (Fig. 6-8, the region including grating 15c) closer to the in-coupling region and a second region (Figs. 6-8, the region including grating 15b) further from the in-coupling region in the first propagation region (where Fig. 3a discloses that grating 15, which is comprised of gratings 15a, 15b, and 15c, is disposed to the left of the coupling-in region that includes grating 13, and where in Figs. 6-8, the rightmost grating 15c would disposed closest to grating 13 if gratings 15a-15c were substituted for grating 15 in Fig. 3a) and including a first diffraction structure 15c on the first region, and a second diffraction structure 15a on an opposite side of the first diffraction structure from the in-coupling region in the first propagation direction (opposing sides disclosed in Figs. 6-8), a grating height δ3 (Figs. 7, 8) of the first diffraction structure 15c being greater than a grating height δ2 of the second diffraction structure 15b (Fig. 7; para. 198), and a grating width S3 of the first diffraction structure 15c being greater than a grating width S2 of the second diffraction structure 15b (para. 194; Figs. 6, 8 discloses respective grating widths; where para. 200 further discloses that Figure 8 combines the features of Figures 6 and 7).
Re: claim 2, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Niv further discloses that the first diffraction structure 15c and the second diffraction structure 15b are formed on a surface of the body 14 (figs. 6-8, where the surface is the upper, generally horizontal extending surface of element 14); and the grating height of the first diffraction structure from the surface is greater than the grating height of the second diffraction structure from the surface (Figs. 7, 8).
Re: claim 5, Liv discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Liv further discloses that the diffraction structure region further includes a third diffraction structure 15a on the second region (Figs. 6-8); the third diffraction structure 15a is on an opposite side of the second diffraction structure 15b from the first diffraction structure in the first propagation direction (placement on opposite side disclosed in Figs. 6-8); the diffraction structure region satisfies at least one of a relation of Ha < He or a relation of Hb < He (Fig. 7 discloses that the height of 15b [Hb] is less than the height of 15a [He]) and satisfies at least one of a relation of We< Wa or a relation of We< Wb (Fig. 6 discloses that the width of 15a [We] is less than the width of 15b [Wb], and where para. 200 states that Fig. 8 is a combination of both Figs. 6 and 7); where Ha denotes the grating height of the first diffraction structure; Hb denotes the grating height of the second diffraction structure; He denotes a grating height of the third diffraction structure; Wa denotes the grating width of the first diffraction structure; Wb denotes the grating width of the second diffraction structure; and We denotes a grating width of the third diffraction structure.
Re: claim 12, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Niv further discloses that the reproduction region includes an exit structure (Fig. 3b, where rays 42 and 43 emerge from substrate 14) allowing the image light ray 42, 43 entering the body from the in-coupling region to emerge from the body 14 toward the field of view region 20, 22 (Fig. 3b discloses entering & emerging).
Re: claim 17, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Niv further discloses a projection optical system 100 (Fig. 9) allowing the image light ray to be incident on the in-coupling region of the light guide as a substantial collimate light ray (Fig. 3b; paras. 147-148 discloses light entering collimator 44 prior to entering element 14).
Re: claim 18, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Niv further discloses an image display device 100 and the display element 121 (Fig. 9).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niv.
Re: claim 3, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1. Niv does not explicitly disclose that the diffraction structure region satisfies relations of 0.3 < Ha/T < 1.2, 0.7 < Wa/T < 1.0, and 1.2 < Ha/Hb < 10.0; where T denotes a grating period of the diffraction structure region; Ha denotes the grating height of the first diffraction structure; Wa denotes the grating width of the first diffraction structure; and Hb denotes the grating height of the second diffraction structure. However, Niv does disclose the general conditions of the claim. Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the height/period and width/period ratios to obtain a desired diffraction efficiency and to reduce light leakage (unused light) in the system.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niv and Zhang (US 20220373725).
Re: claim 7, Niv discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Niv further discloses that the diffraction structure region is constituted by recessed 62 or protruded 64 parts in relation to the thickness direction of the body which are arranged to have a periodicity D in a periodic direction including a component of the first propagation direction (Figs. 6-8).
However, Niv does not explicitly disclose that central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the first diffraction structure are inclined relative to the thickness direction of the body.
Zhang discloses that central axes of the recessed 624 (Fig. 6) or protruded 622 parts in the first diffraction structure 600 are inclined relative to the thickness direction of the body (Fig. 6 discloses incline at angle β).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the first diffraction structure be inclined relative to the thickness direction of the body, as disclosed by Zhang, as applied to the device disclosed by Niv for the purposes of boosting diffraction efficiency and to direct outgoing light rays towards a specific location.
Re: claim 8, Niv and Zhang disclose the limitations of claim 7, and Zhang discloses that the recessed or protruded parts in the first diffraction structure have shapes allowing distances between the recessed or protruded parts in the periodic direction to become greater toward an outside of the body than at an inside of the body in the thickness direction of the body (para. 116 discloses that slant angle α and slant angle β may differ. Referring to Figure 6, increasing angle α and/or decreasing angle β will decrease the distance between protruded parts and decreasing angle α and/or increasing angle β will increase the distance between protruded parts).
Re: claim 9, Niv and Zhang disclose the limitations of claim 7, and Zhang further discloses that central axes of the recessed 624 or protruded 622 parts in the second diffraction structure are inclined relative to the thickness direction of the body (incline disclosed in Fig. 6).
Re: claim 10, Niv and Zhang disclose the limitations of claim 9, and Zhang further discloses that when inclined angles of the central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the first diffraction structure relative to the thickness direction of the body are denoted by Θa and inclined angles of the central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the second diffraction structure relative to the thickness direction of the body are denoted by Θb, a relation of 0.9 < Θa/Θb < 1.1 is satisfied (Fig. 6, where the first diffraction structure is the left portion of grating 600 and the second diffraction structure is the right portion of grating 600 and Θa is the slant angle of the first diffraction structure and Θb is the slant angle of the second diffraction structure, and Θa and Θb are equal to one another).
Re: claim 11, Niv and Zhang disclose the limitations of claim 7, and Niv further discloses that the diffraction structure region further includes a third diffraction structure 15a on the second region (Figs. 6-8); the third diffraction structure is on an opposite side of the second diffraction structure from the first diffraction structure in the first propagation direction (Figs. 6-8); the diffraction structure region satisfies at least one of a relation of Ha < Hc or a relation of Hb < Hc; Hc denotes a grating height of the third diffraction structure (Figs. 7,8 disclose that Ha of 15c is less than Hc of 15a); and Zhang further discloses that when inclined angles of the central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the first diffraction structure relative to the thickness direction of the body are denoted by Θa and inclined angles of the central axes of the recessed or protruded parts in the second diffraction structure relative to the thickness direction of the body are denoted by Θb, a relation of 0.9 < Θa/Θb < 1.1 is satisfied (Fig. 6, where the first diffraction structure is the left portion of grating 600 and the second diffraction structure is the right portion of grating 600 and Θa is the slant angle of the first diffraction structure and Θb is the slant angle of the second diffraction structure, and Θa and Θb are equal to one another).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights