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 (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.
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.
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 1, 2, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshelev et al. (US 2021/0364808) in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0049739), each of record.
Regarding claim 1, Koshelev discloses a waveguide structure (Figs. 1-8) comprising:
a first waveguide layer (412, Fig. 5B); and
a second waveguide layer (402, Fig. 5B) provided on the first waveguide layer,
wherein a refractive index of the first waveguide layer (412) is greater than a refractive index of the second waveguide layer (402) (para. [0049]), and
wherein a thickness of the second waveguide layer (402) is set such that evanescent waves formed in the second waveguide layer by light totally reflected at an interface between the first waveguide layer (412) and the second waveguide layer is provided to exit the waveguide structure (Fig. 5B; para. [0052]).
Koshelev fails to explicitly disclose an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating.
However, Choi discloses a waveguide structure (Figs. 1, 3-7) comprising:
an output grating (150) provided on the second waveguide layer (123) (Fig. 1),
wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating, as in Choi, into the waveguide structure of Koshelev to output parallel light as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Koshelev discloses wherein a thickness of the second waveguide layer (402) increases in one direction (Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 18, Koshelev discloses a backlight unit (Figs. 1-8) comprising:
a light source (590, Fig. 5C); and
a waveguide structure (400, Figs. 5) comprising:
a first waveguide layer (412, Fig. 5B); and
a second waveguide layer (402, Fig. 5B) provided on the first waveguide layer,
wherein a refractive index of the first waveguide layer (412) is greater than a refractive index of the second waveguide layer (402) (para. [0049]), and
wherein a thickness of the second waveguide layer (402) is set such that evanescent waves formed in the second waveguide layer by light totally reflected at an interface between the first waveguide layer (412) and the second waveguide layer is provided to exit the waveguide structure (Fig. 5B; para. [0052]).
Koshelev fails to explicitly disclose an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating.
However, Choi discloses a backlight unit (Figs. 1, 3-7) comprising:
an output grating (150) provided on the second waveguide layer (123) (Fig. 1),
wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating, as in Choi, into the backlight unit of Koshelev to output parallel light as desired.
Regarding claim 19, Koshelev discloses a display apparatus (Figs. 1-8) comprising:
a light source (590, Fig. 5C);
a waveguide structure (400, Figs. 5) comprising:
a first waveguide layer (412, Fig. 5B); and
a second waveguide layer (402, Fig. 5B) provided on the first waveguide layer,
wherein a refractive index of the first waveguide layer (412) is greater than a refractive index of the second waveguide layer (402) (para. [0049]), and
wherein a thickness of the second waveguide layer (402) is set such that evanescent waves formed in the second waveguide layer by light totally reflected at an interface between the first waveguide layer (412) and the second waveguide layer is provided to exit the waveguide structure (Fig. 5B; para. [0052]); and
a spatial light modulator (550B, Fig. 5B) configured to diffract light provided from the waveguide structure (400) to provide a holographic image (paras. [0014, 0052]).
Koshelev fails to explicitly disclose an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating.
However, Choi discloses a display apparatus (Figs. 1, 3-9) comprising:
an output grating (150) provided on the second waveguide layer (123) (Fig. 1),
wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an output grating provided on the second waveguide layer, wherein the waves are provided to and passes through the output grating, as in Choi, into the display apparatus of Koshelev to output parallel light as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that in Koshelev, light 410/510 is evanescently out-coupled from layer 406 to light extractor 412, propagates through polarizer 436, and is out-coupled as output beam 516 in an upward direction. Whereas, Applicant argues, in Choi, output grating 150 is disposed on the bottom surface of the waveguide. However, as shown in Figs. 5 of Koshelev, output light passes through and exits the waveguide structure in both upward and downward directions. Therefore, Koshelev and view of Choi discloses the amended limitation of “light… is provided to and passes through the output grating to exit the waveguide structure,” as recited in claims 1, 18 and 19.
Applicant has further argued that Koshelev fails to disclose evanescent waves formed in the second waveguide layer by light totally reflected at an interface between the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer. However, Koshelev discloses light within the waveguide structure 400 (412+402) is trapped by total internal reflection (TIR) before being evanescently out-coupled from the waveguide 402 (para. [0052]).
Therefore, the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koshelev in view of Choi has been maintained and modified as necessary due to the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights