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 .
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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds (US 10642039 B2) in view of Yamada (US 20150277117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 12, Simmonds discloses a waveguide (Figs. 1, the waveguide 32 having ICG 16, Fig. 2c, showing the input coupling by a multilayer ICG, and Fig. 4b, detailing the layers) comprising:
a substrate (32) configured to propagate light within the waveguide by total internal reflection (Fig. 1); and
one or more second ICGs (16) formed in or on the waveguide and configured to redirect the light to propagate in the waveguide (Figs. 1 and 2c), wherein the one or more second ICGs are arranged in or on a second side of the waveguide opposite the first side (Fig. 2c), wherein the one or more second ICGs include:
a second grating pattern (Figs. 3a-c showing the grating fabrication);
at least one second layer (34) disposed over at least a portion of the second grating pattern (Figs. 3a-c), the at least one second layer comprising at least one second optically transmissive material (TiO2) (“In a grating according to the invention (FIG. 4(b)) a conformal layer 34 of titanium dioxide approximately 70 nm thick is first applied to the grating 16.”); and
at least one third layer (36) disposed over both the second grating pattern and the at least one second layer (“A layer 36 of silver approximately 100 nm thick is then overlaid onto the layer 34.”), such that the at least one second layer (34) is between the second grating pattern (16) and the at least one third layer (Fig. 4b), the at least one third layer comprising at least one optically reflective material (silver).
Simmonds does not explicitly show one or more first incoupling gratings (ICGs) formed in or on the waveguide and configured to redirect the light to propagate in the waveguide, wherein the one or more first ICGs are arranged in or on a first side of the waveguide onto which incoming light is incident, wherein the one or more first ICGs include: a first grating pattern; and at least one first layer disposed over at least a portion of the first grating pattern, the at least one first layer comprising at least one first optically transmissive material.
Yamada drawn to an analogous waveguide having incoupling gratings on the incoming light incident side and on the opposite side explicitly shows one or more first incoupling gratings (ICGs) formed in or on the waveguide (Fig. 3, 32) and configured to redirect the light to propagate in the waveguide (id.), wherein the one or more first ICGs are arranged in or on a first side of the waveguide onto which incoming light is incident (id.), wherein the one or more first ICGs include: a first grating pattern (¶109, “In each of the aforementioned embodiments, the configuration has been made such that a surface relief type diffraction element is used as each of the first diffraction portion 31, the second diffraction portion 32, the third diffraction portion 33 …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the incident side ICG of Yamada to improve coupling into the waveguide of Simmonds and thus improve brightness of the displayed image.
The modified Simmonds does not explicitly show at least one first layer disposed over at least a portion of the first grating pattern, the at least one first layer comprising at least one first optically transmissive material. However, coating of gratings using titanium dioxide is known from Simmonds (discussed supra).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the titanium dioxide of Simmonds over the incident side grating provided by Yamada and thus controlled the efficiency and/or angular bandwidth of the grating and coupled in a range of angles with high brightness.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one of the first grating pattern or the second grating pattern comprises polymer (C. 4, ll. 60-64).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein at least one of the first grating pattern or the second grating pattern comprises material having a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the substrate. Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken that refractive index differences are necessary to manage desired reflection or transmission between materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented such differences in accordance with design needs, e.g. to ensure maximal diffraction by the grating and improve coupling.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one first optically transmissive material or the at least one second optically transmissive material has a refractive index in a range from 1.9 to 3.5 (Simmonds’ TiO2 inherently meets this requirement).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a third grating pattern arranged in or on the first side or the second side of the waveguide, wherein the third grating pattern is laterally offset from the one or more first ICGs and the one or more second ICGs, and wherein the third grating pattern is configured as one or more of a light distribution grating or a light out-coupling grating (Fig. 1, 24, see also Fig. 6 for fabrication).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 14, but does not explicitly show further comprising a fourth grating pattern arranged in or on the first side or the second side of the waveguide, wherein the fourth grating pattern is laterally offset from the one or more first ICGs and the one or more second ICGs, and wherein the fourth grating pattern is configured as one or more of a light distribution grating or a light out-coupling grating.
However, Simmonds already discloses the use of a grating pattern for outcoupling light. Absent any criticality of the fourth grating pattern, mere addition of another outcoupling grating would result in predictable outcoupling in a design direction with a high expectation of success and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Simmonds as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crosby (US 8384999 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the substrate has an index of refraction of at least 1.9. However, choice of refractive index amounts to choice of material. It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Such material is known from Crosby (Claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the high index material known to be suitable for augmented reality applications and thus obtained a predictable display result.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, and Simmonds explicitly shows the grating may be provided in the waveguide material (C. 4, ll. 60-64), but does not explicitly show wherein at least one of the first grating pattern or the second grating pattern comprises material having a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.95. However, choice of refractive index amounts to choice of material. It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Such material is known from Crosby (Claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the high index material known to be suitable for augmented reality applications and thus obtained a predictable display result.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Simmonds as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sqalli (US 20150219842 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the one or more first ICGs and the one or more second ICGs are configured to together provide a first diffraction efficiency to diffract, into the waveguide, light having a first state over a range of angles of light incident thereon and a second diffraction efficiency to diffract, into the waveguide, light having a second state over the range of angles of light incident thereon, wherein the first diffraction efficiency is 1 to 2 times the second diffraction efficiency.
Sqalli drawn to characterization of polarization sensitive input coupling gratings explicitly shows wherein the one or more first ICGs and the one or more second ICGs are configured to together provide a first diffraction efficiency to diffract, into the waveguide, light having a first state over a range of angles of light incident thereon and a second diffraction efficiency to diffract, into the waveguide, light having a second state over the range of angles of light incident thereon, wherein the first diffraction efficiency is 1 to 2 times the second diffraction efficiency (Fig. 23, ¶115, TE coupling efficiency being 1 to 2 times that of TE&TM and TM in e.g. 400-500nm range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that by utilizing ICGs known from Sqalli in the device of the modified Simmonds it would be expected to achieve similar efficiency performance between first and second state, absent any criticality of the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 4-6, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 3, and further discloses wherein at least one of the first state or the second state is a polarization state (Sqalli, Fig. 23, TE, TE&TM i.e. unpolarized, and TM).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the modified Simmonds teaches the waveguide of claim 15, but does not explicitly show wherein the fourth grating pattern is arranged in or on an opposite side of the waveguide from the third grating pattern.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10690831 B2 discloses coated blazed couplers
US 9341846 B2 discloses diffraction efficiency engineering
US 20140204438 A1 discloses blazed ocuplers and multiple couplers
US 20020063962 A1 discloses multilayer blazed gratings
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights