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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-16 have been amended by the Applicant.
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 provisional application US 63/587,614 filed on 10/03/2023.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant et al. (hereafter Grant, of record) US 20200264378 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a lightguide (i.e. as waveguide display with the waveguide e.g. 101, used in near eye displays, e.g. AR,VR,HMD apparatus, 100, see, paragraphs [05-20, 42-50,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, and equivalents in Figs. 2-4,6,10) comprising:
an incoupler configured to direct display light representative of an image into a body of the lightguide (i.e. input grating 102, and equivalents, directing image generator 107 beam 107A into waveguide 101, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101], Figs. 1-4,6); and
a combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure including an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide (i.e. as grating structure 103 with integrated gratings 105,106 (and equivalents Figs. 2-4, 6,10) with array of crossed grating lines/grooves that reflect and that perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), wherein each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings, see Figs. 1,2,3,4C, of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings are substantially orthogonal, as depicted in Fig. 4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]).
In regard to independent claim 9, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a wearable display (HWD) (i.e. as near eye displays, e.g. AR,VR,HMD apparatus, 100 with waveguide display and waveguide e.g. 101, , see, paragraphs [05-20, 42-50,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, and equivalents in Figs. 2-4,6,10) comprising:
an optical engine configured to emit display light representative of an image (i.e. image generator 107 providing image beam 107A for 100 and waveguide 101, paragraphs [2-90, 92-101], Figs. 1-4); and
a lightguide waveguide e.g. 101, used in near eye displays, e.g. AR,VR,HMD apparatus, 100, see, paragraphs [05-20, 42-50,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, and equivalents in Figs. 2-4,6,10) including
a combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure that includes an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide (i.e. as grating structure 103 with integrated gratings 105,106 (and equivalents Figs. 2-4, 6,10) with array of crossed grating lines that reflect and that perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]),
wherein each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines of each section of crossed gratings, see Figs. 1,2,3,4C, of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface (two crossed grating lines of each section of crossed gratings are substantially orthogonal, as depicted in Fig. 4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]).
In regard to independent claim 17, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a lightguide (i.e. as waveguide display with the waveguide e.g. 101, used in near eye displays, e.g. AR,VR,HMD apparatus, 100, see, paragraphs [05-20, 42-50,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, and equivalents in Figs. 2-4,6,10), comprising:
one or more reflective structures configured to direct display light representative of an image into a body of the lightguide (i.e. input grating 102, and equivalents, directing image from image generator 107 as beam 107A into waveguide 101, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101], Figs. 1-4,6); and
an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide (i.e. as grating structure 103 with integrated gratings 105,106 (and equivalents Figs. 2-4, 6,10) with array of crossed grating lines that reflect and that perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), wherein each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines of each section of crossed gratings, see Figs. 1,2,3,4C, of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface (two crossed grating lines of each section of crossed gratings are substantially orthogonal, as depicted in Fig. 4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that for each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors, a side of the first reflective surface is joined with a side of the second reflective surface to form an edge of the louver retroreflector (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element are joined at an edge of that section, as depicted in Fig. 1-2,3,4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 19, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors is arranged such that the first reflective surface of the louver retroreflector is parallel to the first reflective surface of each other louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors (as first surface of each section/element of crossed gratings is parallel to first surface of each other grating section given the substantially orthogonal arrangement of grating elements, see Figs. 4C, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113]).
Regarding claims 5, and 12, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that one or more louver retroreflectors of the array are arranged so as to cover at least a portion of one or more other retroreflectors of the array (i.e. as best understood given that one or more section/element covers one or more other grating section/elements in at least one sideview, see Figs. 1-2,4,10 e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113]).
Regarding claims 6, and 13, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that at least one selected from a group of a height, roll angle, or edge angle of a first louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors different from the at least one selected from a group of a height, roll angle, or edge angle of a second louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors. (i.e. as integrated, multiplexed gratings with grating section/elements can have different size(s), different grating vectors and grating slat (s), see paragraphs [44,71, 82-84,91-94,101], Figs. 1,2-4,10).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the array of louver retroreflectors is configured to split the display light into two or more portions and direct the two or more portions out of the lightguide (i.e. as integrated grating with grating section/elements is configured to expand image generator 107 image beam 107A fields of view into different directions and extract the from the waveguide, see paragraphs [82-84,86-92,101,108,112-113]).
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the lightguide waveguide (display with the waveguide) further includes: a one-dimensional outcoupling structure configured to direct light received from the combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure out of the lightguide (i.e. as best understood, in case with integrated first and second gratings, with first and second prescriptions 602,603, and with third and fourth prescriptions 604,605, see Fig. 6, whit active area 606 containing four multiplexed gratings, as 605 can be configured to provide beam expansion in a second direction for incident light and to extract the light out of the waveguide, and/or 603 can be configured to provide beam expansion in the first direction for incident light and to extract the light out of the waveguide, e.g. paragraphs [105-109], Fig. 6,7-8).
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 3, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (hereafter Grant, of record) US 20200264378 A1 in view of Lao et al. (hereafter Lao, of record) US 20250076649 A1.
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 18, Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a top surface (i.e. as each section/element of two crossed grating lines/grooves with top surface, as depicted in Fig. 1-2,3,4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113]) but is silent regarding having a cutout.
However, Lao teaches in the same field of invention of a waveguide display with multiple joined fields of view (see Figs. 3-5, 10-11,13-19, title, abstract, including waveguide substrate with input coupler and output coupler 2-D gratings with pupil expansion and with substantially orthogonal lines/grooves of grating elements, see Figs. 5, 10-11,13-19 with descriptions, e.g. paragraphs [108-113,123-133,138-143]) and further teaches that each of retroreflectors includes the top surface having a cutout (i.e. as crossed 2-D gratings with two-dimensional arrays of grating elements, e.g. microstructures that have cutout on the top surface as depicted in e.g. Fig. 19, where such shape, and/or alignment direction of the grating elements may be selected to achieve the desired grating vectors and performance, and/or to support multiple FOVs in waveguide displays, see paragraphs [123-133,138-143]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify each grating section/element of integrated grating structure of Grant to include top surface having a cutout according to teachings of Lao in order to select to achieve the desired grating vectors and performance, and/or to support multiple FOVs in waveguide displays (see Lao paragraphs [126, 138-143]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 09/21/2026 with regard to independent claim 1 (and independent claims 9 and 17) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on page 6-7 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Grant does not disclose the feature (1) namely that “ a combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure including an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide, wherein each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface, the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface,” arguing that Grant does not disclose these features as arranged in the claim given that Gran does not mention retroreflectors or louver retroreflectors with two substantially orthogonal reflective surfaces, but only layers of gratings or multiplexed gratings. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue, as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Grant teaches all limitations of claim 1, including the limitations raised under issue (1), as Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a lightguide (i.e. as waveguide display with the waveguide e.g. 101, used in near eye displays, e.g. AR,VR,HMD apparatus, 100, see, paragraphs [05-20, 42-50,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, and equivalents in Figs. 2-4,6,10) comprising:
an incoupler configured to direct display light representative of an image into a body of the lightguide (i.e. input grating 102, and equivalents, directing image generator 107 beam 107A into waveguide 101, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101], Figs. 1-4,6); and
a combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure including an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide (i.e. as grating structure 103 with integrated gratings 105,106 (and equivalents Figs. 2-4, 6,10) with array of crossed grating lines/grooves that reflect and that perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), wherein each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings, see Figs. 1,2,3,4C, of light from the waveguide 101, e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]), the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings are substantially orthogonal, as depicted in Fig. 4C, paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]).
Specifically, Grant teaches the combined exit pupil expansion and outcoupling structure including an array of louver retroreflectors configured to expand an eyebox of the image and direct at least a portion of the display light out of the lightguide, i.e. as grating structure 103 with integrated gratings 105,106 (and equivalents Figs. 2-4, 6,10) has the array of crossed grating lines/grooves that reflect and thus perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 101, and such gratings are surface relief gratings that reside on the outer surface of the waveguide, (e.g. paragraphs [44,82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]) and therefore such crossed gratings have the physical appearance as crossed reflective surfaces of crossed grating on the surface of the waveguide, and also have the same function of perform two-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide 10.
Further Grant teaches that each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface, as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings, and are such two crossed reflective surfaces, see Figs. 1,2,3,4C, of light from the waveguide 101, (see e.g. paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]). Grant shots that the first reflective surface arranged substantially orthogonal to the second reflective surface (as surfaces of two crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element of crossed gratings are substantially orthogonal, which is specially depicted in Fig. 4C reproduced below, where at each crossing point there are two crossed surfaces that cross each other at substantially orthogonal manner (see paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113], e.g. Figs. 1, 2-4,6,10]).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Two orthogonally crossed reflective surfaces of crossed gratings at crossing section)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
346
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4C showing two substantially orthogonal crossed reflective surfaces of crossed gratings.
Moreover, from teaching of Grant the two Integrated crossed grating structures as 105,106, or 402,403 are surface relief gratings (SRG, see cited paragraphs [83,87,93]), that reside on the outer surface of the waveguide paragraphs [44,48]). As they are integrated and crossed i.e. overlapped on the surface of the waveguide, then grating features are formed as surface relief surface features, where the features are small surfaces that cross each other at an angle. As the overlapped crossed surface relief gratings are formed on the surface of the waveguide than they are on the same substrate and hence they form such surface "louvers". As noted the gratings 105,106 (402,403) are surface relief gratings that reflect light, because they serve to two-dimensionally expand and extraction light from the waveguide (Fig. 4A-C), and therefore in the same fashion as claimed "louver retro reflectors" of the instant application, depicted in e.g. Figs. 7, 10. The two angled surfaces of each crossed 105 and 106 surface are joined at their crossing (see annotated Fig. 4C above). Therefore, grant discloses such structures of "louver retroreflectors" with joined surfaces.
Under issue (1) above Applicant’s main argument appears to the based on the claimed terminology of “louver retroreflector(s)” which is not noted in prior art. Notably it is held that
the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131.
Specifically, the crossed integrated surface relief gratings have equivalent reflective surfaces joined together at a substantially right angle, and serve the same function as in the instant application, of 2-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide, which is evident by Figs. 4A-C of Grant in comparison with Figs. 7, 10 of the application. The term "louver retro reflectors" was taken to mean such structures based on their recited physical characteristics and implementation and function in the waveguide. No retroreflecting of light is described in the application. Retroreflecting elements are optical elements that reflect light in a backward general direction. Retroreflecting elements are not associated with 2-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide. On the other hand louvers as optical elements are specialized light-control grid fixtures or baffles used in luminaires to reduce glare, shield direct light sources, and/or direct precise beam angles. Louvers are also not associated with 2-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide. Outside Applicant’s own disclosure the term “louver retroreflector” is not found in prior art. The term “louver retroreflector” is also not associated with 2-dimensional beam expansion and extraction of light from the waveguide.
Additionally, no special definition of the term louver retroreflector, besides general geometric feature and function is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific additional structures, or functionalities) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “louver retroreflector,” which states/seems to imply that louver retroreflector must have additional specific structures or functions. However, the specification is silent as to any such specific interpretation of the term for louver retroreflector. The specification does not prohibit such an interpretation. Therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art of Grant which teaches the recited geometrical structural features and recited functionality, as presented above. Note that is held that consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Lastly it is noted that besides the terminology argument, the claims do not recite additional structural features or criticalities in term of sizes, measures or placements in the lightguide, which may potentially distinguish the prior art structures and teachings from the instant application.
The same responses also equally apply to claim 9 and 17. The cited prior art of Grant teaches all limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17, including the limitations raised under issue (1) above. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument for claim 2 (and 10), it is noted that Grant teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that for each louver retroreflector of the array of louver retroreflectors, a side of the first reflective surface is joined with a side of the second reflective surface to form an edge of the louver retroreflector, as surfaces of two surface relief gratings with crossed grating lines/grooves of each section/element are joined at an edge of that section, as depicted in Fig. 1-2,3,4C (paragraphs [82-90, 92-101,105-108,112-113]).
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 7 of the Remarks dated 09/21/2026.
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 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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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
