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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-8, received 12/13/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Priority
Priority application PCT/IL2021/051084, filed on 9/2/2021, is the earliest filed application that discloses all of the limitations in at least claim 1, as shown in figures 14-16B, and therefore is the earliest priority date given for the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/13/2024 was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100L (see at least figures 13B, 13C, 14). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 309R (see page 17 of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "70" and "72" have both been used to designate the “lower surface” (see at least page 15 of the specification), and "70" and "72" have both been used to designate the “upper surface” (see at least pages 15-16 of the specification), and "65", “67” and "79" have all been used to designate the “coupling-out surface”/“coupling-out element” (see at least pages 17-18 of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because “input aperture 86” on page 16 of the specification should be changed to “input aperture 86’ ”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “65” has been used to designate both “coupling-out surface” and “coupling-in element” (see at least page 17 of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aperture of the eye-motion box must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (see e.g. claim 1, “an eye-motion box having an aperture”). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive (e.g. the invention of this application is not drawn to a method of manufacturing). A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not appear to be drawn to what is claimed to be new in the art to which the invention/application pertains (e.g. the invention of this application is not drawn to a method of manufacturing), and the abstract is too long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Amitai et al., US 2019/0129175 A1, discloses a similar optical device (figs. 23C, 25C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without extending the redirecting optical element (80) by adding k other partially reflecting surfaces wherein the extent Δ of this supplement is limited to the amount defined by equation (5) on page 18 of the specification (see at least pages 17-18 of the disclosure), which is recited as being crucial so that the zero-order light doesn’t distort the image, and which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but wherein these details of the redirecting optical element are not included in the claim(s). Additionally, the invention is drawn to improving the state of the art by increasing the output aperture and the eye-motion box (EMB) by utilizing zero-order light (as described by the last 5 lines of claim 1, and pages 16-X of the disclosure). The disclosure describes that interface surface (323) must be totally reflective for zero-order propagating light waves at specific points, and transmissive to zero-order propagating light waves at other points, requiring a discontinuity in the interface surface (323) (see at least page 18 of the disclosure). This feature may be achieved by utilizing at least one of two disclosed techniques described as being essential to the proper functioning of the optical device which achieves the benefits of the disclosed invention. The first disclosed technique is illustrated in figure 16A, which includes cutting the redirecting optical element (80) between two points (see at least page 18 of the disclosure). The first disclosed technique is illustrated in figure 16B, which includes cutting the redirecting optical element (80) between two points and adhering the two sections together with different optical adhesives (see at least pages 18-19 of the disclosure). However, neither of the two techniques, at least one of which are described as being critical or essential to the practice of the invention, are included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 2-8 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 1, from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least two major surfaces” which indicates that there could be more than two major surfaces (not shown in any of the disclosed embodiments), but then later recites “the two major surfaces” on lines 8 and 12. Therefore, it is not clear if the major surfaces are limited to two major surfaces, or if there may be more than two major surfaces. Additionally, it is not clear which two of the potentially more than two major surfaces “the two major surfaces” refers. Claim 1 also refers to “the major surfaces” on line 10, but it is not clear which, or how many, of the multiple major surfaces this limitation refers to. Therefore, the metes-and-bounds of claim 1 are unclear. Claims 2, 4 and 6 also refer to “the major surfaces” and therefore are indefinite for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
In claim 6, the language “are reflected at least twice a first and a second reflectance” does not make sense and is indefinite. Additionally, in claim 6, it is not clear which light waves “light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected…by the first flat reflecting surface” refers since claim 1, and the disclosure of the invention, appears to describe that not all light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected by the first flat reflecting surface.
In claim 7, the language “are reflected at least a first and a second reflectance” does not make sense and is indefinite. Additionally, in claim 7, it is not clear which light waves “light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected…by the second flat reflecting surface” refers since claim 1, and the disclosure of the invention, appears to describe that not all light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected by the second flat reflecting surface.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amitai et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0292818 A1 (hereafter Amitai).
Regarding claim 1, Amitai discloses an optical device (see at least figures 23-24B), comprising:
a light-transmitting substrate having at least two major surfaces and edges (see at least figures 23-24B, elements 360a and/or 360b);
an input aperture (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light enters elements 360a and/or 360b);
an output aperture (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light exits elements 360a and/or 360b);
an eye-motion box having an aperture (see at least figures 23-24B, where eye 24 is positioned);
an intermediate element positioned outside of the substrate for coupling incoming light waves, having a field-of view, into the substrate through the input aperture (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light enters element 367);
a first flat reflecting surface, located between the two major surfaces of the light-transmitting substrate, for reflecting incoming light waves from the intermediate element to effect total internal reflection from the major surfaces of the substrate (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light enters element 365 and/or 366);
a second flat reflecting surface parallel to the first flat reflecting surface, located between the two major surfaces of the light-transmitting substrate, for coupling light waves out of the substrate (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light enters element 67a and/or 67b), and
a redirecting optical element positioned outside of the substrate for redirecting light waves coupled-out from the substrate through the output aperture, into the eye-motion-box (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light enters element 365 and/or 366),
wherein at least a first part of a light wave trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate is reflected at least once by the first flat reflecting surface before being coupled into the light-transmitting substrate through the input aperture and at least a second part of the same light wave is coupled into the light-transmitting substrate without being reflected from the first flat reflecting surface (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light 364a is reflected at surface 265 while light 364b is not, and/or wherein light 364b is reflected from surface 366 while light 364a is not).
Regarding claim 2, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the second part of the light wave propagates inside the light-transmitting substrate by total internal reflection from the major surfaces of the substrate (see at least figures 23-24B, light 364a and/or light 364b, paras. [0120]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 3, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first part of a light wave is reflected at least once by the second flat reflecting surface before being coupled out from the light-transmitting substrate, and the second part of the light wave is coupled out from the light-transmitting substrate through the output aperture into the eye-motion-box without being reflected from the second flat reflecting surface (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein for example light 364a reflects off surfaces 365 and 67a, but does not reflect off of surface 366 or 67b).
Regarding claim 4, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the major surfaces of the light-transmitting substrate are parallel to each other and the light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are plane light waves (see wherein the major surfaces are described throughout as parallel, see e.g. paras. [0058], [0103], claim 38; and see wherein the input light is described throughout as plane waves, see e.g. paras. [0058], [0098]-[0100], [0144]-[0146]).
Regarding claim 5, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein different light waves from the same plane light wave trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate, propagate inside the light-transmitting substrate with two different off-axis angles αin1,αin0in relation to the normal to at least one of the major surfaces of the first light-transmitting substrate (see at least paras. [0119]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected at least twice a first and a second reflectance by the first flat reflecting surface before being coupled into the light-transmitting substrate through the input aperture and are substantially reflected from one of the major surfaces between the first and the second reflectance from the first flat reflecting surface (see at least figures 23-24B, light element 364a reflected at least twice by surface 365).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein light waves trapped inside the light-transmitting substrate are reflected at least a first and a second reflectance by the second flat reflecting surface before being coupled out from the light-transmitting substrate through the output aperture and are substantially reflected from one of the major surfaces between the first and the second reflectance from the second flat reflecting surface (see at least figures 23-24B, light element 364a reflected off surface 67a).
Regarding claim 8, Amitai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein light waves coupled inside the substrate are reflected the same number of reflections from the first and the second flat reflecting surfaces (see at least figures 23-24B, wherein light element 364a is reflected off surface 365 the same number of times as off surface 67a, and/or wherein light element 364b is reflected off surface 366 the same number of times as off surface 67b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. Allen can be reached at 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/18/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights