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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 states “claim 1, wherein wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets and in the second set of partially reflecting facets reflects light at incidence angles between 55 and 85 degrees from the normal… the image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 85 degrees from the normal to the surface increases as the angle of incidence increases from 55 to 85 degrees from the normal to the surface” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,589.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,551,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “between said first and second external faces, and in each of said sets of facets, the respective facets are: at an oblique angle relative to said first and second external faces…first and second sets of lines being non-parallel” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,551,544.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,705. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a lightguide formed from transparent material having two mutually-parallel planar major surfaces for guiding light corresponding to a collimated image by internal reflection at the major surfaces” and “the first section and the second section are combined as a continuation in non-overlapping relation, wherein the light injected into the lightguide is reflected by the first set of partially reflecting facets of the first section and redirected towards the second section and is subsequently reflected by a second set of partially reflecting facets of the second section” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,705.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,393. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “an image projector configured to project image illumination corresponding to a collimated image, said image projector being optically coupled to said LOE so as to introduce said image illumination into said LOE so as to propagate within said LOE by internal reflection at said pair of major external surfaces, a center-field of said image illumination introduced into said LOE propagating within said LOE in a first direction having a first in-plane component” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,385,393.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,561,335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “at least part of each of the internal surfaces of the first set…such that the sets of internal surfaces cooperate to reflect all components of light from the first and second subsets” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,561,335.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,448,816. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “an image projector for projecting a collimated image having an angular field of view about an optical axis, said collimated image having a projector optical aperture” and “a coupling-in surface having a coupling-in optical aperture…to generate a coupled-out image directed outwards from one of said major external surfaces towards the user” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,448,816.
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, 7, 10, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeJong (US 2010/0111472).
Regarding claim 1, DeJong discloses, an optical device (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below) comprising:
a lightguide (300) for guiding light corresponding to a collimated image (421, 422), the lightguide comprising a first external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below) and a second external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below) parallel to the first external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), the lightguide having a first section (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below) and a second section (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), the first section comprising a first set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), and the second section comprising a second set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below);
the first section reflects the guided light propagating in a first guided direction in the lightguide to propagate in a second guided direction in the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), the second section reflects the guided light propagating in the second guided direction in the lightguide to out of the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below); and
a coupling-in arrangement (see area/portion of 412 where 421, 422 are incident and enter 302) configured to guide light into the lightguide such that the light propagates via internal reflection of the first and second external faces along the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), wherein the light is incident on each facet of the first set of partially reflecting facets at two angular ranges from a normal to a surface of the facet (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), and each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles in a first range, from the two angular ranges (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 below), is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles in a second range, from the two angular ranges, different from the first range (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, DeJong discloses, the tight is incident on each facet of the second set of partially reflecting facets at two angular ranges from a normal to a surface of the facet (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), each of the facets in the second set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles in a first range, from the two angular ranges, is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles in a second range, from the two angular ranges, different from the first range (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 7, DeJong discloses, in the first set of partially reflecting facets the respective partially reflecting facets are at a first angle which is oblique relative to the first and second external faces, and in the second set of partially reflecting facets the respective partially reflecting facets are at a second angle which is oblique relative to the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 10, DeJong discloses, the lightguide having an entrance through which light enters into the lightguide (see area/portion of 412 where 421, 422 are incident and enters 302), the first set of partially reflecting facets includes a first group of facets and a second group of facets (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), the second group of facets at a further distance from the entrance than the first group of facets (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a respective coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles in the first range for facets in the second group is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles in the first range for facets in the first group (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 13, DeJong discloses, the partially reflecting facets in the second set are nonparallel to the partially reflecting facets in the first set (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 14, DeJong discloses, the partially reflecting facets of the first section overlap the partially reflecting facets of the second section along:(a) a width dimension of the lightguide, or (b) along a height dimension of the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 15, DeJong discloses, the partially reflecting facets of the first section overlap the partially reflecting facets of the second section along:(a) a width dimension of the lightguide, or (b) along a height dimension of the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 16, DeJong discloses, an angle of the partially reflecting facets of the first section relative to the first external face is different from an angle of the partially reflecting facets of the second section relative to the first external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 17, DeJong discloses, an optical device (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) comprising:
a lightguide (300) for guiding light corresponding to a collimated image (421, 422), the lightguide having a first section (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) and a second section (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), the first section comprising a first external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) and a second external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) parallel to the first external face and a first set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), and the second section (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) comprising a third external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) and a fourth external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above) parallel to the third external face and a second set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the third and fourth external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), the third and fourth external faces non-parallel to the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above);
the first section reflects the guided light propagating in a first guided direction in the lightguide to propagate in a second guided direction in the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), the second section reflects the guided light propagating in the second guided direction in the lightguide to out of the lightguide (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above); and
a coupling-in arrangement (see area/portion of 412 where 421, 422 are incident and enter 302) configured to guide light into the lightguide such that the light propagates via internal reflection (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), wherein the light is incident on each facet of the first set of partially reflecting facets at a first angular range from a normal to a surface of the facet and at a second angular range (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), different from the first angular range (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), from the normal to the surface of the facet, each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at the first angular range is higher than image reflectivity at the second angular range (Para. 0032, 0041 and see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 18, DeJong discloses, the light is incident on each facet of the second set of partially reflecting facets at a first angular range from a normal to a surface of the facet and at a second angular range (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above), different from the first angular range, from the normal to the surface of the facet, each of the facets in the second set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at the first angular range is higher than image reflectivity at the second angular range (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 20, DeJong discloses, an angle of the partially reflecting facets of the first set relative to the first external face is different from an angle of the partially reflecting facets of the second set relative to the third external face (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above)
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.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeJong (US 2010/0111472) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Morgan (US 2011/0011449).
DeJong remains as applied to claim 1 above.
DeJong does not explicitly disclose each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 87 degrees from the normal to the surface.
Morgan teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device (Figs. 1-3) that it would have been desirable to make each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets (112, 116, 118) has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 87 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 87 degrees from the normal to the surface as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 4, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make each of the facets in the second set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 87 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 5, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and DeJong further discloses, the first set of partially reflecting facets the respective partially reflecting facets are at a first angle which is oblique relative to the first and second external faces, and in the second set of partially reflecting facets the respective partially reflecting facets are at a second angle which is oblique relative to the first and second external faces (see annotated Figs. 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 6, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make each of the facets in the second set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 87 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 8, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make each of the facets in the first set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 72 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 9, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make each of the facets in the second set of partially reflecting facets has a coating such that image reflectivity at incidence angles between 10 to 55 degrees from a normal to the surface of the facet is higher than image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 72 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 11, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make the first range corresponds to incidence angles between 55 and 85 degrees from the normal to the surface of the facet and the second range corresponds to angles lower than 55 degrees (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 12, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make for each of the facets in the first set the image reflectivity at incidence angles between 55 and 85 degrees from the normal to the surface increases as angles of incidence increase from 55 to 85 degrees from the normal to the surface (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Regarding claim 19, DeJong in view of Morgan discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Morgan further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical device that it would have been desirable to make the first angular range corresponds to 10 to 55 degrees from the normal to the surface of the facet and the second angular range corresponds to at least one of: (a) 55 to 87 degrees from the normal to the surface of the facet or (b) 55 to 72 degrees from the normal to the surface of the facet (Para. 0159, lines 24-29 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical device of Morgan in the optical device of DeJong since Morgan teaches it is known to include these features in an optical device for the purpose of providing an optical device with reduced weight and cost and enhanced light transmission and reflectance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dobschal et al. (US 2017/0045743) discloses an optical device comprising a lightguide for guiding light, the lightguide having a first section and a second section, the first section comprising a first set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the first and second external faces, and the second section comprising a second set of partially reflecting facets parallel to each other and disposed between the first and second external faces, and a coupling-in arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights