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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/2/2024 has been considered.
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 1-2, 6-8, 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 1, 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 (Fig. 3, [0033]), wherein the surface relief grating structure comprises:
a plurality of ridges separated by a plurality of troughs (Fig. 4A, [0038])); and
an anti-reflective layer 405a, 405b, 405c formed over the plurality of ridges, wherein the anti-reflective layer fills the plurality of troughs and wherein the plurality of ridges is interposed between the waveguide and the anti-reflective layer (Fig. 4B, [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Tervo discloses the display system defined in claim 1, wherein
the anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of layers with different refractive indices (Fig. 4B, [0044], the additional AR coatings may be of different type).
Regarding claim 6, Tervo discloses the display system defined in claim 1, wherein
the anti-reflective layer is a first anti-reflective layer, wherein the plurality of ridges is a first plurality of ridges, 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 second anti-reflective layer formed over the second plurality of ridges, wherein the second plurality of ridges is interposed between the waveguide and the second 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 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 second anti-reflective layer (Fig. 3, 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 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]).
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 a 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
at least one surface relief grating structure 301, 303, 305 at the waveguide (Fig. 3, [0033]), wherein the at least one 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 (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 (corresponding to expanding region 212) of the plurality of ridges (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.
Claims 4, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo.
Regarding claim 4, Tervo discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo does not disclose wherein the anti-reflective layer is a single layer of optical coating.
In Tervo, the AR coating comprises a plurality of coatings 405a-405c (Fig. 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 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 9, Tervo discloses the system of claim 6.
Tervo does not disclose wherein the first anti-reflective layer is a single-layer anti-reflective layer and the second anti-reflective layer is a multi-layer anti-reflective layer.
In Tervo, 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 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 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo does not disclose wherein the anti-reflective layer has a uniform thickness over both the plurality of ridges and the plurality of troughs.
In Tervo, 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 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 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”.
Claim 3, 5, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0227316, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 3, Tervo discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo does not disclose wherein the surface relief grating structure further comprises an additional anti-reflective layer that is interposed between the plurality of ridges and the waveguide.
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 comprises a slanted grating formed on a waveguide (claim 17), wherein an AR coating is formed on the grating (claim 19, [0010]) and an additional AR coating is formed on a surface of the waveguide opposite the grating (claim 18, [0010]), i.e., interposed between the grating/ridges and the waveguide).
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 the surface relief grating structure (SRG) 400 comprises an additional AR layer interposed between the SRG and the waveguide, as taught by Lee, for additional prevention of glare or ghost images ([0003] in Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Tervo discloses the system of claim 1.
Tervo does not disclose 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.
Lee discloses a waveguide display (Abstract, Fig. 3). In one embodiment, the waveguide comprises a slanted grating formed on a waveguide (claim 17), wherein an AR coating is formed on the grating (claim 19, [0010]). Lee discloses that the material of the overcoating may have a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the grating. Moreover, the difference in the refractive indices may be at least 0.3 ([0116]).
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 refractive index of the SRG 400 is at least 0.3 higher than the refractive index of the AR coating, as taught by Lee, for achieving desired diffraction angles for the display.
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 comprises a slanted grating formed on a waveguide (claim 17), wherein an AR coating is formed on the grating (claim 19, [0010]) and an additional AR coating is formed on a surface of the waveguide opposite the grating (claim 18, [0010]), i.e., interposed between the grating/ridges and the waveguide.
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 the surface relief grating structure (SRG) 400 comprises an AR layer interposed between the SRG and the waveguide, as taught by Lee, for additional prevention of glare or ghost images ([0003] 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 15, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
the surface relief grating structure further comprises an additional anti-reflective layer 405a or 405a-405c (Fig. 4B in Tervo) that is formed over the plurality of ridges and wherein the plurality of ridges is interposed between the additional anti-reflective layer and the anti-reflective layer.
Regarding claim 16, Tervo/Lee discloses the system of claim 15, 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 15, 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).
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo in view of Sell et al. (US 2021/0382212, hereinafter, “Sell”).
Regarding claim 11, Tervo discloses the system of claim 10.
Tervo 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 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/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/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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights