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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 9/10/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 16-17, 20, cancelled claims 3, 15 and added claims 24-25.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/904,959 filed on 10/2/2014 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
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.
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 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tervo et al. (US 2019/0056591, hereinafter, “Tervo”).
Regarding claim 20, Tervo discloses a display system 200 (Fig. 2, [0026]) comprising:
a waveguide 205 configured to propagate image light B1 (Fig. 2, [0030]-[0032]),
wherein the waveguide has first (corresponding to in-coupling region 210 and intermediate expanding region 212) and second (corresponding to outgoing region 215) opposing sides (Fig. 2, [0030]-[0032]); and
a coupler comprising a surface relief grating structure 301, 303 at the waveguide (Fig. 3, [0033]), wherein the surface relief grating structure comprises:
a plurality of ridges separated by a plurality of troughs, wherein the plurality of ridges is formed on the first side of the waveguide (Fig. 4A, [0038]);
a first anti-reflective layer 405a formed on the first side of the waveguide and aligned with a first subset 301 (corresponding to in-coupling region 210) of the plurality of ridges (Fig. 4B, [0044]); and.
a second anti-reflective layer 405a formed on the first side of the waveguide and aligned with a second subset 303 (corresponding to expanding region 212) of the plurality of ridges in the surface relief grating structure 301, 303 (Fig. 4B, [0044]),
wherein the first anti-reflective layer has at least one property that is different than in
the second anti-reflective layer ([0030]-[0031], region 210 is an in-coupling region, region 212 is an expanding region).
Regarding claim 21, Tervo discloses a display system defined in claim 20, wherein
the at least one property is a dimension ([0044], multiple coatings with different number of coatings have a different dimension).
Regarding claim 22, Tervo discloses a display system defined in claim 20, wherein
the at least one property is a material ([0044]).
Regarding claim 23, Tervo discloses a display system defined in claim 20, wherein
the at least one property is a number of layers ([0044]).
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo.
Regarding claim 24, Tervo discloses a display system defined in claim 20, wherein
the second anti-reflective layer is disposed adjacent to the first anti-reflective layer (Fig. 3, gratings 301 and 303 are adjacent).
Tervo does not disclose the second anti-reflective layer is in contact with the first anti-reflective layer (i.e., the gratings 301 and 303 are in contact).
The parameter of the distance between the in-coupling grating region 210 and the intermediate expanding grating region 212 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the optical properties of the associated waveguide, for example, effecting the losses of the light propagating in the waveguide depending on the travelled distance).
Tervo discloses the claimed invention except for the gratings being in contact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo so that the distance between the two gratings lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the distance between the two gratings is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optical properties of the SRG waveguide structure.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the AR coating because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13-14, 16-19, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo et al. (US 2019/0056591, hereinafter, “Tervo”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0227316, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Tervo discloses a display system 200 (Fig. 2, [0026]) comprising:
a waveguide 205 configured to propagate image light B1 and comprising first 205 and second 206 opposing surfaces (Fig. 2, [0028]-[0029], [0030]-[0032]); and
a surface relief grating structure 301, 303, 305 at the first surface of the waveguide (Fig. 3, [0033]), wherein the surface relief grating structure comprises:
a plurality of ridges separated by a plurality of troughs (Fig. 4A, [0038]));
a first anti-reflective layer 405a, 405b, 405c formed over the plurality of ridges, wherein the first anti-reflective layer fills the plurality of troughs and wherein the plurality of ridges is interposed between the first surface of the waveguide and the first anti-reflective layer (Fig. 4B, [0044]).
Tervo does not disclose a second anti-reflective layer that is interposed between the plurality of ridges and the first surface of the waveguide.
Lee discloses a waveguide display (Abstract, Fig. 3). In one embodiment, the waveguide display comprises a slanted grating 1520 formed on a top surface of waveguide 1510, wherein an AR coating 1560 is formed on the waveguide’s bottom surface 1512 opposite the grating 1520 (Fig. 15B, [0104]).
Both Tervo and Lee disclose waveguide displays used in HMDs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo so that an additional AR layer is formed on the bottom surface of the waveguide, as taught by Lee, for reducing reflection of diffracted external light 1538 at the bottom surface of the waveguide (Fig. 15A, [0104] in Lee).
In the modified Tervo/Lee display, a second AR layer is formed at the bottom of the waveguide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the above Tervo/Lee display so that an additional AR layer is formed at the top surface of the waveguide (the top surface being interposed between the plurality of ridges of the grating and top surface of the waveguide), for reducing further reflection of diffracted external light 1538 at the interface between the surface relief grating and the top surface of the waveguide (Fig. 15A, [0104] in Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Tervo/Lee discloses the display system defined in claim 1, wherein
the first anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of layers with different refractive indices (Fig. 4B, [0044], in Tervo, the additional AR coatings may be of different type).
Regarding claim 4, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo/Lee does not disclose wherein the first anti-reflective layer is a single layer of optical coating.
In Tervo/Lee, the AR coating comprises a plurality of coatings 405a-405c (Fig. 4C in Tervo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo/Lee so that the surface relief grating structure (SRG) 400 includes a single AR coating formed thereupon, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965), for simplifying the fabrication of the AR coating (see also [0044] in Tervo).
Regarding claim 5, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of ridges is formed from a material with a first refractive index, wherein the first anti-reflective layer comprises a material with a second refractive index, and wherein the second refractive index is lower than the first refractive index by at least 0.3 ([0116] in Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Tervo/Lee discloses the display system defined in claim 1, wherein
the plurality of troughs is a first plurality of troughs, and wherein the surface relief grating structure further comprises:
a second plurality of ridges separated by a second plurality of troughs; and
a third anti-reflective layer formed over the second plurality of ridges, wherein the second plurality of ridges is interposed between the waveguide and the third anti-reflective layer (Fig. 2, 3, step 503 in Fig. 5, [0030]-[0033], Tervo discloses that the optical waveguide 250 includes a plurality of similar SRGs 210, 212, 215).
Regarding claim 7, Tervo/Lee discloses the display system defined in claim 6, wherein
the first anti-reflective layer has at least one property that is different than in the third anti-reflective layer (Fig. 3, in Tervo, grating 210 is an in-coupling grating whereas gratings 212, 215 are expanding, out-coupling gratings, that is, the respective AR layers have different properties).
Regarding claim 8, Tervo/Lee discloses the display system defined in claim 7, wherein
the first plurality of ridges defines an input coupler 210 and wherein the second plurality of ridges defines a combined optical coupler (212, 215) that performs the function of both a cross coupler 303 and an output coupler 305 (Fig. 3, [0031]-[0032] in Tervo).
Regarding claim 9, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 6.
Tervo/Lee does not disclose wherein the first anti-reflective layer is a single-layer anti-reflective layer and the third anti-reflective layer is a multi-layer anti-reflective layer.
In Tervo/Lee, the first and the second AR layer comprise multiple layers (Fig. 3, 4C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo/Lee so that one coupler, i.e., 210, comprises a single layer AR coating and the second coupler, i.e., 215 comprises a multi-layer AR layer, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965), for simplifying the fabrication of the AR coating (see also [0044] in Tervo).
Regarding claim 10, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo/Lee does not disclose wherein the first anti-reflective layer has a uniform thickness over both the plurality of ridges and the plurality of troughs.
In Tervo/Lee, the AR coating comprises a plurality of coatings 405a-405c, where the total coating has different thickness over the ridges and the troughs (Fig. 4C).
The parameter of the thickness pf the AR coating over the SRG is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the optical properties of the associated waveguide, see [0041] in Tervo.
Tervo/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for uniform thickness of the AR coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo/Lee so that the thickness of the AR coating lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the AR coating is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optical properties of the SRG waveguide structure, as taught by Tervo.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the AR coating because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 13, Tervo discloses a display system 200 (Fig. 2, [0026]) comprising:
a waveguide 205 configured to propagate image light B1 (Fig. 2, [0030]-[0032]); and
a surface relief grating structure 301, 303, 305 at the waveguide, wherein the surface relief grating structure comprises (Fig. 3, [0033]):
a plurality of ridges separated by a plurality of troughs (Fig. 4A, [0038])).
Tervo does not disclose an anti-reflective layer formed between the waveguide and the plurality of ridges.
In Tervo, AR layers 405 are formed over the ridges and the troughs (Fig. 4C).
Lee discloses a waveguide display (Abstract, Fig. 3). In one embodiment, the waveguide display comprises a slanted grating 1520 formed on a top surface of waveguide 1510, wherein an AR coating 1560 is formed on the waveguide’s bottom surface 1512 opposite the grating 1520 (Fig. 15B, [0104]).
Both Tervo and Lee disclose waveguide displays used in HMDs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo so that an additional AR layer is formed on the bottom surface of the waveguide, as taught by Lee, for reducing reflection of diffracted external light 1538 at the bottom surface of the waveguide (Fig. 15A, [0104] in Lee).
In the modified Tervo/Lee display, a second AR layer is formed at the bottom of the waveguide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the above Tervo/Lee display so that an additional AR layer is formed at the top surface of the waveguide (the top surface being interposed between the plurality of ridges of the grating and top surface of the waveguide), for reducing further reflection of diffracted external light 1538 at the interface between the surface relief grating and the top surface of the waveguide (Fig. 15A, [0104] in Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
the anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of layers with different refractive indices (Fig. 4B, [0044] in Tervo, the plurality of AR coatings 504 (thus, also the anti-reflective coating of Lee) may be of different type).
Regarding claim 16, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
the surface relief grating structure further comprises an additional anti-reflective layer 405a (Fig. 4B in Tervo) that is formed over the plurality of ridges, wherein the plurality of ridges is interposed between the additional anti-reflective layer 405a and the anti-reflective layer (similar to AR layer 1560 of Lee formed at the top surface of the waveguide), and wherein
the additional anti-reflective layer 405a is patterned to overlap the plurality of ridges without filling the plurality of troughs (Fig. 4B in Tervo).
Regarding claim 17, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
wherein the surface relief grating structure further comprises an additional anti-reflective layer 405a-405c (Fig. 4C in Tervo) that is formed over the plurality of ridges, wherein the plurality of ridges is interposed between the additional anti-reflective layer 405a-405c and the anti-reflective layer (similar to AR layer 1560 of Lee formed at the top surface of the waveguide), and wherein
the additional anti-reflective layer 405a-405c overlaps the plurality of ridges and fills the plurality of troughs (Fig. 4C in Tervo).
Regarding claim 18, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the anti-reflective layer is a single layer of optical coating ([0010] in Lee).
Regarding claim 19, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
the plurality of ridges is formed from a material with a first refractive index, wherein the anti-reflective layer comprises a material with a second refractive index, and wherein the second refractive index is lower than the first refractive index by at least 0.3 ([0116] in Lee).
Regarding claim 25, Tervo/Lee discloses the display system defined in claim 13, wherein
the waveguide comprises first and second opposing surfaces, wherein the surface relief grating structure is at the first surface of the waveguide, and wherein the anti-reflective layer is formed between the first surface of the waveguide and the plurality of ridges (Fig. 15B in Lee, the additional AR coating is formed at the top surface of the waveguide 1510).
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo in view of Lee and Sell et al. (US 2021/0382212, hereinafter, “Sell”).
Regarding claim 11, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 10.
Tervo/Lee does not disclose wherein the surface relief grating structure further comprises:
an encapsulation layer that is formed over the anti-reflective layer, wherein the encapsulation layer has a planar surface, a first thickness over the plurality of ridges, and a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness over the plurality of troughs.
Sell discloses a waveguide ot-coupling grating 100 (Abstract, [0024]). In one embodiment, the grating comprises a SRG 110 and a SRG 122, wherein an encapsulation layer 150 is formed over the gratings (Fig, 1B, [0045]).
Both Tervo and Sell disclose SRGs formed on waveguides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Tervo/Lee so that the surface relief grating structure (SRG) 400 has an encapsulation layer formed thereupon, as taught by Sell, for controlling the diffraction efficiency and directionality ([00032] in Sell). It is noted that in the above modified Tervo/Lee/Sell device, the encapsulation layer has a planar surface, a first thickness over the plurality of ridges, and a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness over the plurality of troughs (Fig. 1B in Sell).
Regarding claim 12, Tervo/Lee/Sell discloses the system of claim 11, wherein
the encapsulation layer is formed from a same material as the plurality of ridges ([0031], [0046] in Sell).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 (now including the features of claim 3) Applicant stated “Lee fails to show or suggest any anti- reflective layer interposed between the plurality of ridges and the surface of the waveguide having the surface relief grating structure. Claim 18 of Lee states that an anti-reflective coating may be on a surface of the waveguide opposite to the coupler. This is shown in FIG. 15B of Lee, in which the anti- reflective layer 1560 is disposed on the surface of the waveguide opposite the surface having the optical coupler 1520. Notably, Lee's anti-reflective layer 1560 disposed on the surface of the waveguide opposite the surface having the optical coupler 1520 is not the same as the claimed arrangement, which describes an anti-reflective layer interposed between the plurality of ridges of the surface relief grating structure and the surface of the waveguide having the surface relief grating structure. Indeed, Lee makes no mention of any anti-reflective layer 1560 being interposed between the ridges of coupler 1520 and the surface of the waveguide 1510 having coupler 1520”, see pages 11-12 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 and its dependents has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the same reference of Lee.
Regarding independent claim 13 Applicant stated “Lee fails to show or suggest any anti-reflective layer formed between the waveguide and the plurality of ridges in the surface relief grating structure. Claim 18 and FIG. 15B of Lee describe that the anti-reflective layer 1560 is disposed on the surface of the waveguide opposite the surface having the optical coupler 1520. In other words, Lee shows that the waveguide is between the anti-reflective layer 1560 and the coupler 1520. This is not the same as the claimed arrangement, which describes that the anti-reflective layer is formed between the waveguide and the plurality of ridges of the surface relief grating structure.”, see page 13 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. The rejection of claim 13 and its dependents has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the same reference of Lee.
Regarding claim independent claim 20 Applicant stated “However, Tervo's in-coupling region 210 and intermediate expander region 212 are separate couplers. Tervo shows in FIG. 3 three distinct grating structures 301, 303, and 305 and states in para. [0033] that grating structure 301 forms the in-coupling region 210 while grating structures 303 and 305 form the out-coupling region 215. Although Tervo describes a coating 405a that can be disposed on the grating 400 (FIG. 4B and 4C), coating 405a being disposed on the separate grating structures 301 and 303 is not the same as the claimed arrangement, which describes two antireflective coatings on subsets of ridges within the surface relief grating structure of a single coupler.”, see page 15 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
It is noted that the surface relief grating structure of Tervo includes a first subset of ridges 301 and a second subset of ridges 303 (Fig. 3), each subset having a first and a second AR coating, respectively, formed thereupon (Fig. 4C). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation principle, the first subset of ridges 301 and the second subset of ridges 303 constitute a coupler (as claimed).
The rejection of independent claims 1, 13 and 20 (and their dependents) is maintained.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
