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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted Claims 21-29 are directed to one or more inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Originally filed Claims 1-6, now cancelled, were originally presented to a stacked waveguide structure of originally filed Figure 7. The originally presented invention required first, second, and third light guide plates each comprising first, second, and third input gratings, output gratings, and optical efficiency enhancement layers, respectively, with the claimed input gratings and output gratings being generic. Originally filed Claims 7-12, were originally presented to a waveguide structure of originally filed Figure 4. The originally presented invention required a light guide plate, an input grating, an output grating, and an optical efficiency enhancement layer that overlapped only the output grating, with the claimed input grating being configured to reflect and diffract a portion of an input beam incident from a second surface of the light guide plate, and with the output grating being configured to reflect and diffract a second portion of the first diffracted reflection beam. Originally filed Claims 13-15, now cancelled, were originally presented to a generic waveguide structure comprising a light guide plate, a generic diffraction grating, and/or a generic optical efficiency enhancement layer.
Newly presented Claims 21-25 are directed to a display device comprising a light guide plate, an input grating, an output grating, and an optical efficiency enhancement layer, wherein the input grating has a specific structural configuration necessary to produce diffracted and reflected beams as claimed, the output grating has a specific structural configuration necessary to produce diffracted and reflected beams as claimed, and the optical efficiency enhancement layer is structurally configured to provide the claimed reflected portions of the claimed beams. The embodiment of Claims 21-25 was not originally presented and is distinct from the originally filed embodiments of originally presented Claims 1-15.
Newly presented Claims 26-29 are directed to a display device comprising a light guide plate, an input grating, an output grating, and two optical efficiency enhancement layers, with a first optical efficiency enhancement layer overlapping the input grating and a second optical efficiency enhancement layer overlapping the output grating. Likewise, the embodiment of Claims 26-29 was not originally presented and is distinct from the originally filed embodiments of originally presented Claims 1-15.
Claims 21-29 would have been properly restricted if originally presented with originally filed Claims 1-15.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 7, 11-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubinin et al. (hereinafter “Dubinin” US 2019 / 0317264) in view of Akutsu et al. (hereinafter “Akutsu” US 2015 / 0260994).
As pertaining to Claim 7, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) a display device (i.e., see Page 1, Para. [0002]) comprising:
a light guide plate (130);
an input grating (120) on a first surface (130a) of the light guide plate (130), the input grating (120) being configured to diffract a portion of an input beam at an angle equal to or greater than a critical angle of the light guide plate (130), a second surface (130b) being opposite to the first surface (130a);
an output grating (145) on the first surface (130a) of the light guide plate (130), spaced apart from the input grating (120), the output grating (145) being configured to transmit and diffract a first portion of a first diffracted beam, the first diffracted beam being a portion of the input beam diffracted by the input grating (120), wherein the input beam is incident on the second surface (130b) from outside (see (110)) the light guide plate (130; see Page 4, Para. [0069]-[0075]); and
an optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) on a second surface (130b) of the light guide plate (130) and overlapping the output grating (145) in a traveling direction (i.e., a vertical direction) of the input beam; see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0097]-[0098] and [0102]; and Page 8, Para. [0131]).
Dubinin does not explicitly disclose that the input grating is configured to reflect a portion of the input beam incident from the second surface (130b) of the light guide plate (130). In this regard, Dubinin does not explicitly disclose that the output grating is configured to transmit and diffract a first diffracted reflection beam that is a portion of the input beam reflected and diffracted by the input grating.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akutsu discloses (see Fig. 1) a display device (120) comprising a light guide plate (121), an input grating (135), and an output grating (140), wherein the input grating (135) is configured to reflect a portion of an input beam incident from a second surface (122) of the light guide plate (121) and diffract the portion of the input beam at an angle equal to or greater than a critical angle of the light guide plate (121), and the output grating (140) is configured to transmit and diffract a first diffracted reflection beam that is a portion of the input beam reflected and diffracted by the input grating (135; see Page 1, Para. [0003] and Page 13, Para. [0193]). Akutsu discloses that by providing an input grating that is diffractive and reflective, and is configured to reflect a portion of an input beam incident from the second surface of the light guide plate, it is possible to increase a diffraction efficiency, increase a diffraction reception angle, and optimize a diffraction-reflection angle (again, see Page 13, Para. [0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu, such that the input grating (120) of Dubinin is configured to reflect a portion of the input beam incident from the second surface (130b) of the light guide plate (130), as suggested by Akutsu, such that the output grating is configured to transmit and diffract a first diffracted reflection beam that is a portion of the input beam reflected and diffracted by the input grating, in order to increase a diffraction efficiency, increase a diffraction reception angle, and optimize a diffraction-reflection angle.
As pertaining to Claim 11, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) that the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) does not overlap the input grating (120) in the traveling direction of the input beam (again, see Page 8, Para. [0131]).
As pertaining to Claim 12, the combined teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu disclose (see Fig. 15 of Dubinin in combination with Fig. 1 of Akutsu) that the optical efficiency enhancement layer (see (180) of Dubinin) is configured to reflect, to the output grating (see (145) of Dubinin), a second diffracted reflection beam, the second diffracted reflection beam being a second portion of the first diffracted reflection beam reflected and diffracted by the output grating (again, see (145) of Dubinin; and again, see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0097]-[0098] and [0102]; and Page 8, Para. [0131] of Dubinin in combination with Page 1, Para. [0003] and Page 13, Para. [0193] of Akutsu).
As pertaining to Claim 16, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) that the traveling direction of the input beam is substantially perpendicular to a first direction (i.e., a horizontal direction; see Fig. 15 and note that the input beam travels in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, and oblique directions therebetween within the light guide plate (130)),
wherein the width of the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) is less than a width of the light guide plate (130) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction; see Fig. 15; and again, see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0097]-[0098] and [0102]).
As pertaining to Claim 17, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) that the traveling direction of the input beam is substantially perpendicular to a first direction (i.e., a horizontal direction; see Fig. 15 and note that the input beam travels in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, and oblique directions therebetween within the light guide plate (130)),
wherein a width of the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) is greater than a width of the output grating (145) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction; see Fig. 15),
wherein the width of the output grating (145) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) is within (i.e., less than) the width of the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) in the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction; see Fig. 15; and again, see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0097]-[0098] and [0102]).
As pertaining to Claim 19, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) that the second surface (130b) of the light guide plate (130) is farther from a user’s eye than the first surface (130a) of the light guide plate (130; again, see Page 4, Para. [0069]-[0075]).
As pertaining to Claim 20, Dubinin discloses (see Fig. 15) that the first diffracted reflection beam propagates within the light guide plate (130) through total internal reflection (again, see Page 4, Para. [0069]-[0075]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubinin in view of Akutsu and further in view of Wall et al. (hereinafter “Wall” US 2017 / 0235142).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Dubinin discloses (see Fig.15) that the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) comprises a narrowband reflection plate having a reflection bandwidth optimized for the wavelength band of the light source (110; see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0098] and [0102]). Still, neither Dubinin nor Akutsu discloses that the optical efficiency enhancement layer comprises a narrowband reflection plate having a reflection bandwidth of 40 nm or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wall discloses (see Fig. 4) a display device (402) comprising a light guide plate (100) with an input grating (112) and an output grating (116) on a first surface of the light guide plate (100), and an optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) on a second surface of the light guide plate (100) and overlapping with the output grating (116), wherein the optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) is implemented as a multilayer structure comprising both a polarization reflection plate (i.e., polarization-selective layers) and a narrowband reflection plate (i.e., wavelength-selective layers) in combination (see Page 8, Para. [0060]-[0062], [0065]-[0066]). Further, Wall discloses (again, see Fig. 4) that red light has a wavelength range from 600nm to 650nm, green light has a wavelength range from 500nm to 550nm, and blue light has a wavelength range from 430nm to 480nm (see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0013]). That is, a wavelength band range for red, green, and blue color components of light is no more than about 50nm. It is the expressed goal of Wall to provide an optical efficiency enhancement layer, analogous to that of Dubinin and Akutsu, that can improve the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images (see Page 2, Para. [0014]), and that has a designed reflection band that is tuned to a designated wavelength band of an input beam such that a specific light guide only transmits light from the designated wavelength band of the input beam (see Page 7, Para. [0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a reflection bandwidth of the narrowband reflection plate that is 40nm or less would provide the benefit of precise color matching and reduced crossover between adjacent color bands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu with the teachings of Wall, such that a reflection bandwidth of the narrowband reflection plate is 40 nm or less, as suggested by Wall, in order to provide an optical efficiency enhancement layer that improves the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images, and that has a designed reflection band that is tuned to a designated wavelength band of an input beam such that a specific light guide only transmits light from the designated wavelength band of the input beam with precise color matching and reduced crossover between adjacent color bands.
As pertaining to Claim 9, Dubinin discloses (see Fig.15) that the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) is optimized for a light source (110) by selectively reflecting desired light (see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0098] and [0102]). Still, neither Dubinin nor Akutsu discloses that the optical efficiency enhancement layer comprises a polarization reflection plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wall discloses (see Fig. 4) a display device (402) comprising a light guide plate (100) with an input grating (112) and an output grating (116) on a first surface of the light guide plate (100), and an optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) on a second surface of the light guide plate (100) and overlapping with the output grating (116), wherein the optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) is implemented as a multilayer structure comprising both a polarization reflection plate (i.e., polarization-selective layers) and a narrowband reflection plate (i.e., wavelength-selective layers) in combination (see Page 8, Para. [0060]-[0062], [0065]-[0066]). It is the expressed goal of Wall to provide an optical efficiency enhancement layer, analogous to that of Dubinin and Akutsu, that can improve the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images (see Page 2, Para. [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu with the teachings of Wall, such that the optical efficiency enhancement layer comprises a polarization reflection plate, as suggested by Wall, in order to provide an optical efficiency enhancement layer that improves the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images.
As pertaining to Claim 10, neither Dubinin nor Akutsu explicitly assigns a percentage to the reflectance of the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) with respect to the input beam. That is, neither Dubinin nor Akutsu explicitly states that a reflectance of the optical efficiency enhancement layer with respect to the input beam is 50% or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor and in the same manner as suggested by Dubinin and Akutsu, Wall discloses (see Fig. 4) a display device (402) comprising a light guide plate (100) with an input grating (112) and an output grating (116) on a first surface of the light guide plate (100), and an optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) on a second surface of the light guide plate (100) and overlapping with the output grating (116), wherein the optical efficiency enhancement layer (422) is implemented as a multilayer structure, having a reflectance with respect to wavelength of an input beam of 50% or more (see Page 7, Para. [0058] and see Page 8, Para. [0060]-[0062], [0065]-[0066]). In this regard, Wall discloses an optical efficiency enhancement layer, analogous to that of Dubinin and Akutsu, that can improve the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images (see Page 2, Para. [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu with the teachings of Wall, such that a reflectance of the optical efficiency enhancement layer with respect to the input beam is 50% or more, in order to improve the image quality of a display device by increasing the intensity of the displayed images, removing dark spots, and preventing light leakage to thereby eliminate ghost images.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubinin in view of Akutsu and further in view of Oh (US 2018 / 0239177).
As pertaining to Claim 18, Dubinin discloses (see Fig.15) that the optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) comprises a narrowband reflection plate having a reflection bandwidth optimized for the wavelength band of the light source (110; see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0098] and [0102]). Dubinin further discloses (see Fig. 19) that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stacked light guide structure (200) comprising first, second, and third light guide plates (203, 202, 201), each comprising an optical efficiency enhancement layer (283, 282, 281), such that each optical efficiency enhancement layer (283, 282, 281) respectively comprises a first, second, and third narrowband reflection plate (283, 282, 281), wherein the first narrowband reflection plate (283) is configured to reflect a blue visible beam (B), a second narrowband reflection plate (282) is configured to reflect a green visible beam (G), and a third narrowband reflection plate (281) is configured to reflect a red visible beam (R) in order to provide full-color light emissions (see Page 9, Para. [0140]-[0148]).
However, neither Dubinin nor Akutsu discloses a structure in which the optical efficiency enhancement layer comprises a first narrowband reflection plate configured to reflect a blue visible beam; a second narrowband reflection plate configured to reflect a green visible beam; and a third narrowband reflection plate configured to reflect a red visible beam, with the first narrowband reflection plate, the second narrowband reflection plate, and the third narrowband reflection plate being stacked on the light guide plate.
Still, in the same field of endeavor, Oh suggests (see Fig. 17C and Fig. 18) that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the stacked light guide structure disclosed by Dubinin (see Fig. 19) can equivalently be provided using the common light guide structure as disclosed by Dubinin (see Fig. 15). That is, Oh suggest (see Fig. 18) that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an optical efficiency enhancement layer (1750) comprising a first narrowband reflection plate (1750A) configured to reflect a blue visible beam; a second narrowband reflection plate (1750B) configured to reflect a green visible beam; and a third narrowband reflection plate (1750C) configured to reflect a red visible beam, with the first narrowband reflection plate (1750A), the second narrowband reflection plate (1750B), and the third narrowband reflection plate (1750C) being stacked on a common light guide plate (1704; see Page 18, Para. [0178]-[0179]). In this regard, Oh suggests that the light guide structure disclosed by Dubinin (see Fig. 15) can provide for full-color light emissions by implementing the stacked light guide structure of Dubinin (see Fig. 19) equivalently using a stacked optical efficiency enhancement layer structure (see Fig. 18 in comparison to Fig. 17C) of Oh). Further, it is a goal of Oh to provide efficient and optimized light emission in a light guide display device with spectral selectivity and full-color display (see Page 12, Para. [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dubinin and Akutsu with the teachings of Oh, such that the first narrowband reflection plate, the second narrowband reflection plate, and the third narrowband reflection plate are stacked on the light guide plate, as suggested by Oh, in order to provide full-color selective light emissions using a structural configuration known in the art to improve efficiency and optimize light emission in a light guide display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that none of the references relied upon by the examiner in the prior Office Action, namely Dubinin and Akutsu, teach or fairly suggest the claimed “input grating,” “output grating,” and “optical efficiency enhancement layer” of independent Claim 7, wherein “the input beam is incident on the second surface from outside the light guide plate” (see Remarks at Pages 10 through 13). In particular, the applicant has argued that neither Dubinin nor Akutsu disclose the claimed functionality of the claimed “input grating.” In particular, the applicant has argued, with respect to the teachings of Figure 1 of Akutsu, that there is “no situation” in which light can be reflected from surface (122) back to the input grating (135) such that the input grating (135) causes the reflected light to diffract greater than the critical angle of the waveguide. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Respectfully, the examiner maintains that the teachings of Dubinin clearly provide for the claimed light guide plate (130), input grating (120), output grating (145), and optical efficiency enhancement layer (180) structurally configured in the manner recited in independent Claim 7. Notably, Dubinin does not explicitly disclose that the input grating, on the first surface of the light guide plate, is configured to reflect a portion of an input beam incident from the second surface of the light guide plate and diffract that portion at an angle equal to or greater than a critical angle. However, this feature is implicit in the structure disclosed by Dubinin and is explicitly disclosed by Akutsu. That is, Akutsu provides for an input grating (135) that is, in fact, configured to reflect a portion of an input beam (i.e., a “negative angle” beam) incident from the second surface (122) of the light guide plate (121) and diffract that portion at an angle equal to or greater than a critical angle to support total internal reflection of the input beam towards an output grating (see Page 1, Para. [0003] and Page 13, Para. [0193]). One of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have recognized the benefit of implementing the input grating as disclosed by Akutsu in the display device of Dubinin in order to increase a diffraction efficiency, increase a diffraction reception angle, and optimize a diffraction-reflection angle (again, see Page 13, Para. [0193] of Akutsu). The examiner respectfully points out that no structural features regarding the claimed “input grating” have been recited in the claims that would distinguish the claimed input grating from that suggested by Dubinin and Akutsu. The applicant is respectfully reminded that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification without reading features from the specification into the claims. The examiner further points out that light scattering is an inherent feature of the light guide (121) of Akutsu and (130) of Dubinin and, in fact, any other light guide. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1 of Akutsu, any light beam reflecting off of the second surface (122) at an angle to reach the input grating (135) will have at least a portion that is reflected and diffracted by input grating (135) at an angle equal to or greater than a critical angle. Again, the claimed invention does not recite any structural features related to the claimed input grating that would distinguish the claimed configuration from that of Dubinin and Akutsu.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 7-12 and 16-20 is maintained. Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akutsu et al. (US 11,073,693) corresponds to Akutsu et al. (US 2015 / 0260994) cited above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623