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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025, 3/26/2026, and 5/5/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 and 2, the phrase “… wherein wherein …” is assumed to be a typographic error. Examiner assumes that it should have been written “… wherein . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, the phrase “…optical layer …” is assumed to be a typographic error. Examiner assumes that it should have been written “… optical element …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masson (US 2018/0321736, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Masson discloses a display device comprising:
a light guide that is curved (Fig. 1, curved lens 102, Paragraphs 0021-0022); and
an image light emitter (Fig. 1, curved lens 102, Paragraphs 0021-0022) that outputs image light to the light guide (Paragraph 0022), wherein
the light guide includes:
a first light guide layer (Fig. 1, external wave guide HOE 110, Paragraph 0024);
a second light guide layer (Fig. 1, portion of the curved lens 102 between 112 and 114, Paragraphs 0026 and 0030); and an optical element that is disposed between the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer (Fig. 1, HOE 114, Paragraphs 0030), the optical element diffracting and emitting light propagating in the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer (Paragraphs 0030).
Masson does not specifically disclose the first light guide layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the second light guide layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to include the first light guide layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the second light guide layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also see in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 2, Masson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses
wherein the first light guide layer is in a form of a film (Fig. 1, external wave guide HOE 110, Paragraph 0024 and Paragraph 0045, lines 7-10),
the second light guide layer is curved (Fig. 1, curved lens 102, Paragraph 0045, lines 8-9, curved lens);
the first light guide layer is provided in a curved shape by being bonded along the second light guide layer (Paragraph 0045, lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Masson discloses a display device comprising:
a light guide that is curved (Fig. 1, curved lens 102, Paragraphs 0021-0022); and
an image light emitter (Fig. 1, curved lens 102, Paragraphs 0021-0022) that outputs image light to the light guide (Paragraph 0022), wherein
the light guide includes:
a first light guide layer (Fig. 1, external wave guide HOE 110, Paragraph 0024);
a second light guide layer (Fig. 1, portion of the curved lens 102 between 112 and 114, Paragraphs 0026 and 0030); and an optical element that is disposed between the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer (Fig. 1, HOE 114, Paragraphs 0030), the optical element diffracting and emitting light propagating in the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer (Paragraph 0030).
Masson does not specifically disclose the second light guide layer stays in a curved shape at room temperature, and the first light guide layer is bendable and stretchable at room temperature.
However, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date for the second light guide layer stays in a curved shape at room temperature,
since it was known in the art (Masson, Paragraphs 0015-0016, describes a wearable augmented reality device with curved lens and curved light guide layers, it is commonly known AR devices are worn by users at room temperature) for the purpose of reducing optical distortions.
Additionally, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date for the first light guide layer is bendable and stretchable at room temperature,
since it was known in the art (Masson, Paragraph 0045, describes a waveguide that is a flexible film that is attached to a curved lens, examiner interprets “flexible” as also meaning “bendable” in this instance, as well as also meaning “stretchable”, since when the flexible film is attached to a curved lens, it would also be stretchable since the radius of curvature would be less for the side of the film attached to the lens compared to the radius of curvature for the opposite side, regarding “at room temperature”, see obviousness rejection above) for the purpose of smoothly attaching a waveguide to an optical lens in order to reduce optical distortions.
Regarding Claim 8, Masson discloses a method for manufacturing a light guide, the method comprising:
bonding an optical element to a first light guide layer (Fig. 1, external waveguide 110, Paragraphs 0021-0022, Paragraph 0018, affixing), the optical element diffracting and emitting light (Fig. 1, decoupling HOE, 114, Paragraph 0030, HOE can be a diffractive optical element, Paragraph 0041, the HOE can be a diffractive element);
bonding the first light guide layer to which the optical layer (optical element) has been bonded, to a second light guide layer (Fig. 1, portion of the curved lens 102 between 112 and 114, Paragraphs 0026 and 0030) so that the optical element is disposed between the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer (Fig. 1, as shown); wherein
the second light guide layer is curved (Fig. 1, portion of the curved lens 102 between 112 and 114 is curved, Paragraphs 0021), and
Masson does not specifically disclose the first light guide layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the second light guide layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to include the first light guide layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the second light guide layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also see in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masson (US 2018/0321736, of record) in view of Nichol et al. (US 2022/0196903).
Regarding Claim 4, Masson discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose further comprising: a first bonding component that bonds the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer; and a second bonding component that bonds the second light guide layer and the optical element.
However, Nichol, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a first bonding component that bonds the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer; and a second bonding component that bonds the second light guide layer and the optical element (Paragraph 0125, last 10 lines, an adhesive bonds a lightguide to a glass or polymer substrate, the adhesive being the bonding component), for the purpose of firmly affixing a lightguide to a substrate such as a lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the display device of Masson with the further comprising: a first bonding component that bonds the first light guide layer and the second light guide layer; and a second bonding component that bonds the second light guide layer and the optical element, of Nichol, for the purpose of firmly affixing a lightguide to a substrate such as a lens.
Regarding Claim 9, Masson discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein in the bonding of the optical element, the optical element is bonded to the first light guide layer via a first bonding component, and in the bonding of the first light guide layer, the first light guide layer to which the optical layer has been bonded is bonded to the second light guide layer via a second bonding component.
However, Nichol, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the bonding of the optical element, the optical element is bonded to the first light guide layer via a first bonding component, and in the bonding of the first light guide layer, the first light guide layer to which the optical layer has been bonded is bonded to the second light guide layer via a second bonding component (Paragraph 0125, last 10 lines, an adhesive bonds a lightguide to a glass or polymer substrate, the adhesive being the bonding component), for the purpose of firmly affixing a lightguide to a substrate such as a lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Masson with the wherein in the bonding of the optical element, the optical element is bonded to the first light guide layer via a first bonding component, and in the bonding of the first light guide layer, the first light guide layer to which the optical layer has been bonded is bonded to the second light guide layer via a second bonding component, of Nichol, for the purpose of firmly affixing a lightguide to a substrate such as a lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the second light guide layer includes: a first face that is closer to the first light guide layer; and a second face that is on a reverse side of the first face, and the first face is rougher than the second face.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the first light guide layer has a thickness that is at most ⅕ a thickness of the second light guide layer.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein a thickness of the first light guide layer is greater than: a thickness of the first bonding component; a thickness of the second bonding element; and a thickness of the optical element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schowengerdt (US 9,841,601), Nichol et al. (US 2015/0219834), and Saito et al. (US 2019/0137818) are cited to show similar display devices but do not disclose the allowable subject matter as detailed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights