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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 30, 2024 and January 28, 2026 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 14, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 “a distance between the passive display panel and the couple-in lens assembly are smaller than 10 millimeters” should read “a distance between the passive display panel and the couple-in lens assembly is smaller than 10 millimeters”
Claims 5 and 14 “the same side of the second waveguide element” should read “a same side of the second waveguide element”
Claims 7-8, and 16 “the same side of the first waveguide element” should read “a same side of the first waveguide element”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “a couple-in lens assembly”. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, the limitation “a couple-in lens assembly” is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element of the lens assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the lens assembly to perform the function of “in-couple” of the mixed reality display device. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claim 1 as indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret any lens assembly as satisfying the limitation of “a couple-in lens assembly.”
Claims 2-9 and 11-16 inherit the deficiency of Claim 1 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sissom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0409156 – hereinafter referred to as “Sissom”) in view of Yu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0365482 – hereinafter referred to as “Yu”) and in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0251526 – hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Sissom teaches a mixed reality display device (Figure 14A system 1400), comprising:
a first waveguide element (Figure 14A bottom waveguide of stack 1405 of waveguides, [0204]);
a light source (Figure 14A light source 1110, [0204]) located in a light path upstream of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A light source 1110 is upstream of bottom waveguide of stack 1405, see Figure 12A for analogous light path);
a first coupling element (Figure 14C out-coupling optical element 1180, [0188]) located on the first waveguide element (Figure 14C out-coupling optical element 1180 is on bottom waveguide of stack 1405);
a couple-in lens assembly (Figures 14A-C optics 1130, [0202]) located at a first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the first coupling element (Figure 14C optics 1130 are on first side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from out-coupling optical element 1180); and
a passive display panel (Figures 14A-C spatial light modulator (SLM) 1140 which is a passive display panel, [0202]), located at the first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the first holographic optical element (Figure 14C SLM 1140 is on first side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from out-coupling optical element 1180), wherein the passive display panel and the light source are respectively located at two different sides of the couple-in lens assembly (Figures 14A and C light source 1110 and SLM 1140 are on different sides of optics 1130).
Sissom fails to explicitly teach the out-coupling optical element 1180 of system 1400 is a holographic optical element (Sissom teaches out-coupling optical element 1180 is a diffractive element). However, Yu teaches a waveguide display (Figure 23A) and that volume holograms area a type of diffractive optical element and that achieves high diffraction efficiency ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the out-coupling optical element taught by Sissom be a holographic optical element as taught by Yu in order to achieve a high diffraction efficiency.
Sissom and Yu fail to teach a distance between the passive display panel and the couple-in lens assembly are smaller than 10 millimeters. However, Kim teaches a display device (Figure 24) where the distance between a complex light modulation element of holographic display device 2310 and the projection optical system 2350 is greater than 0 mm and less than 18 mm ([0180]). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Kim further teaches minimizing the distance between the display and optical system in order for the device to be miniaturized ([0180]). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the distance between the passive display panel and couple-in lens assembly taught by Sissom to be between 0 and 10 mm, which overlaps the disclosed range of less than 10 mm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Regarding claim 2, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom further teaches a first polarizer ([0179] polarizer 1115) located between the first waveguide element and the light source ([0179] polarizer between light source and waveguide);
a second coupling element (Figures 14A-C in-coupling optical element 1360) located on a second side of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element is on bottom waveguide of stack 1405), the second coupling element and the first coupling element located on the same side of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element 1360 is on top side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405, Figure 14c out-coupling optical element 1180 is on top of bottom waveguide of stack 1405), wherein the second coupling element is spaced apart from the first coupling element at a distance in a first direction (Figure 14B in-coupling optical element 1360 and out-coupling optical element 1180 are laterally displaced in a first direction); and
a second polarizer (Figure 14A analyzer 1150, [0190] analyzer 1150 is a polarizer) located at the first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the second coupling element (Figure 14A analyzer 1150 is on first side bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from in-coupling optical element 1360), wherein at least a portion of the second polarizer overlaps the second coupling element in a second direction different from the first direction (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element 1360 overlaps analyzer 1150 in vertical second direction).
Sissom fails to explicitly teach the in-coupling optical element 1360 and out-coupling optical element 1180 of system 1400 is a holographic optical element (Sissom teaches out-coupling optical element 1180 is a diffractive element). However, Yu teaches a waveguide display (Figure 23A) and that volume holograms area a type of diffractive optical element and that achieves high diffraction efficiency ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the in-coupling and out-coupling optical elements taught by Sissom be holographic optical elements as taught by Yu in order to achieve a high diffraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom further teaches an entrance lens (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105, [0179]) located between the light source and the first waveguide element (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105 is between light source 1110 and bottom waveguide of stack 1405).
Regarding claim 4, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom further teaches a second waveguide element (Figure 14A middle waveguide of stack 1405) located at a side of the first waveguide element facing away from the couple-in lens assembly (Figure 14A middle waveguide of stack 1405 is on side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away optics 1130).
Regarding claim 5, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Sissom, Yu, and Kim fail to teach the light source and the first waveguide element are located at the same side of the second waveguide element. However, another embodiment taught by Sissom (Figure 17 device 1700) teaches the light source can be on the same side as the couple-in lens assembly (Figure 17 light source 1110 and optics 1130 are on same side of waveguide 1720). By moving light source 1110 to be on the same side as optics 1130 in system 1400, light source 1110 and bottom waveguide of stack 1405 would be on the same side of middle waveguide of stack 1405. Sissom further teaches this as a variation of system 1400 that could be done by a person having ordinary skill in the art ([0213] “A wide variety of different variations in the aforementioned systems are possible. For example, the location of the light source 1110 with respect to the waveguide(s) and optics may be different). 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 the mixed realty display device taught by Sissom, Yu, and Kim by moving the light source to be on the same side of second waveguide as the first waveguide as taught by Sissom in Figure 17 and doing so would merely be a matter of design choice (Sissom [0213]) and may be done to achieve a desired size of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 5. Sissom further teaches an entrance lens (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105, [0179]) located between the light source and the second waveguide element (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105 is between light source 1110 and middle waveguide of stack 1405).
Regarding claim 7, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom, Yu, and Kim fail to teach the light source and the couple-in lens assembly are located at the same side of the first waveguide element. However, another embodiment taught by Sissom (Figure 17 device 1700) teaches the light source can be on the same side as the couple-in lens assembly (Figure 17 light source 1110 and optics 1130 are on same side of waveguide 1720). Sissom further teaches this as a variation of system 1400 that could be done by a person having ordinary skill in the art ([0213] “A wide variety of different variations in the aforementioned systems are possible. For example, the location of the light source 1110 with respect to the waveguide(s) and optics may be different”). 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 the mixed realty display device taught by Sissom, Yu, and Kim by moving the light source to be on the same side of the first waveguide as the couple-in lens assembly as taught by Sissom in Figure 17 and doing so would merely be a matter of design choice (Sissom [0213]) and may be done to achieve a desired size of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom in embodiment of Figures 14A-C fails to teach a polarizing beam splitter located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source, wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction, and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction. However another embodiment taught by Sissom (Figure 10) teaches a polarizing beam splitter (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020) located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and illumination source 1010 are located on the same side as projection optics 1040), wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and illumination source 1010 overlap in the Y-direction), and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and projection optics 1040 overlap in the X-direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixed reality device taught by Sissom, Yu, and Kim by adding a polarizing beam splitter located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source, wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction, and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction as taught by Sissom in Figure 10 since polarizing beam splitters are well-known in the art and would provide polarized light and reduce the size of the device by bending the optical path.
Regarding claim 9, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sissom further teaches the passive display panel comprises at least one of liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), liquid crystal display (LCD), digital micromirror device (DMD), and spatial light modulator (SLM) (Figures 14A-C spatial light modulator (SLM) 1140, [0202]).
Regarding claim 10, Sissom teaches a mixed reality display device (Figure 14A system 1400), comprising:
a first waveguide element (Figure 14A bottom waveguide of stack 1405 of waveguides, [0204]);
a light source (Figure 14A light source 1110, [0204]) located in a light path upstream of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A light source 1110 is upstream of bottom waveguide of stack 1405, see Figure 12A for analogous light path);
a first coupling element (Figure 14C out-coupling optical element 1180, [0188]) located on the first waveguide element (Figure 14C out-coupling optical element 1180 is on bottom waveguide of stack 1405);
a couple-in lens assembly (Figures 14A-C optics 1130, [0202]) located at a first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the first coupling element (Figure 14C optics 1130 are on first side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from out-coupling optical element 1180); and
a passive display panel (Figures 14A-C spatial light modulator (SLM) 1140 which is a passive display panel, [0202]), located at the first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the first holographic optical element (Figure 14C SLM 1140 is on first side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from out-coupling optical element 1180), wherein the passive display panel and the light source are respectively located at two different sides of the first waveguide assembly (Figures 14A and C light source 1110 and SLM 1140 are on different sides of bottom waveguide of stack 1405).
Sissom fails to explicitly teach the out-coupling optical element 1180 of system 1400 is a holographic optical element (Sissom teaches out-coupling optical element 1180 is a diffractive element). However, Yu teaches a waveguide display (Figure 23A) and that volume holograms area a type of diffractive optical element and that achieves high diffraction efficiency ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the out-coupling optical element taught by Sissom be a holographic optical element as taught by Yu in order to achieve a high diffraction efficiency.
Sissom and Yu fail to teach a distance between the passive display panel and the couple-in lens assembly are smaller than 10 millimeters. However, Kim teaches a display device (Figure 24) where the distance between a complex light modulation element of holographic display device 2310 and the projection optical system 2350 is greater than 0 mm and less than 18 mm ([0180]). It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Kim further teaches minimizing the distance between the display and optical system in order for the device to be miniaturized ([0180]). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the distance between the passive display panel and couple-in lens assembly taught by Sissom to be between 0 and 10 mm, which overlaps the disclosed range of less than 10 mm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Regarding claim 11, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Sissom further teaches a first polarizer ([0179] polarizer 1115) located between the first waveguide element and the light source ([0179] polarizer between light source and waveguide);
a second coupling element (Figures 14A-C in-coupling optical element 1360) located on a second side of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element is on bottom waveguide of stack 1405), the second coupling element and the first coupling element located on the same side of the first waveguide element (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element 1360 is on top side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405, Figure 14c out-coupling optical element 1180 is on top of bottom waveguide of stack 1405), wherein the second coupling element is spaced apart from the first coupling element at a distance in a first direction (Figure 14B in-coupling optical element 1360 and out-coupling optical element 1180 are laterally displaced in a first direction); and
a second polarizer (Figure 14A analyzer 1150, [0190] analyzer 1150 is a polarizer) located at the first side of the first waveguide element facing away from the second coupling element (Figure 14A analyzer 1150 is on first side bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away from in-coupling optical element 1360), wherein at least a portion of the second polarizer overlaps the second coupling element in a second direction different from the first direction (Figure 14A in-coupling optical element 1360 overlaps analyzer 1150 in vertical second direction).
Sissom fails to explicitly teach the in-coupling optical element 1360 and out-coupling optical element 1180 of system 1400 is a holographic optical element (Sissom teaches out-coupling optical element 1180 is a diffractive element). However, Yu teaches a waveguide display (Figure 23A) and that volume holograms area a type of diffractive optical element and that achieves high diffraction efficiency ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the in-coupling and out-coupling optical elements taught by Sissom be holographic optical elements as taught by Yu in order to achieve a high diffraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Sissom further teaches an entrance lens (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105, [0179]) located between the light source and the first waveguide element (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105 is between light source 1110 and bottom waveguide of stack 1405).
Regarding claim 13, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Sissom further teaches a second waveguide element (Figure 14A middle waveguide of stack 1405) located at a side of the first waveguide element facing away from the couple-in lens assembly (Figure 14A middle waveguide of stack 1405 is on side of bottom waveguide of stack 1405 facing away optics 1130).
Regarding claim 14, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Sissom, Yu, and Kim fail to teach the light source and the first waveguide element are located at the same side of the second waveguide element. However, another embodiment taught by Sissom (Figure 17 device 1700) teaches the light source can be on the same side as the couple-in lens assembly (Figure 17 light source 1110 and optics 1130 are on same side of waveguide 1720). By moving light source 1110 to be on the same side as optics 1130 in system 1400, light source 1110 and bottom waveguide of stack 1405 would be on the same side of middle waveguide of stack 1405. Sissom further teaches this as a variation of system 1400 that could be done by a person having ordinary skill in the art ([0213] “A wide variety of different variations in the aforementioned systems are possible. For example, the location of the light source 1110 with respect to the waveguide(s) and optics may be different). 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 the mixed realty display device taught by Sissom, Yu, and Kim by moving the light source to be on the same side of second waveguide as the first waveguide as taught by Sissom in Figure 17 and doing so would merely be a matter of design choice (Sissom [0213]) and may be done to achieve a desired size of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Sissom further teaches an entrance lens (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105, [0179]) located between the light source and the second waveguide element (Figure 14A coupling optic 1105 is between light source 1110 and middle waveguide of stack 1405).
Regarding claim 16, Sissom, Yu, and Kim teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Sissom in embodiment of Figures 14A-C fails to teach a polarizing beam splitter located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source, wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction, and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction. However another embodiment taught by Sissom (Figure 10) teaches a polarizing beam splitter (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020) located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and illumination source 1010 are located on the same side as projection optics 1040), wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and illumination source 1010 overlap in the Y-direction), and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction (Figure 10 polarizing beam splitter 1020 and projection optics 1040 overlap in the X-direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixed reality device taught by Sissom, Yu, and Kim by adding a polarizing beam splitter located at the same side of the first waveguide element as the light source, wherein the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the light source in a first direction, and the polarizing beam splitter overlaps the first waveguide element in a second direction different from the first direction as taught by Sissom in Figure 10 since polarizing beam splitters are well-known in the art and would provide polarized light and reduce the size of the device by bending the optical path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ikeda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0113466) teaches a display apparatus using a waveguide and holographic optical elements in a similar arrangement to the instance invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights