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 filed on 2/3/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/21/2025 has been considered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/033,090 filed on 1/21/2025 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole (US 2021/0294101, hereinafter, “Cole”).
Regarding claim 1, Cole discloses a pupil expander of a near-eye display, the pupil expander comprising (Fig. 5, [0002]):
a waveguide 500 transparent to display light 510 and configured to guide the display light along a first direction (i.e., at an angle α with respect to the X axis) (Fig. 5, [0096]); and
a partial reflective mirror on a first surface 503a of the waveguide, wherein the partial reflective mirror is parallel to the first direction and is characterized by different reflectivity at a plurality of regions along the first direction (Fig. 5, [0096]), wherein
each region of the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror (e.g., regions corresponding to rays R0-R7) is configured to partially reflect incident light and partially transmit the incident light through the region of the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror (Fig. 5, [0096]-[0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1, wherein
the waveguide is configured to reflect the display light at a second surface 503b opposing the first surface 503a by total internal reflection (Fig. 5, [0097]).
Regarding claim 6, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1, further comprising
a reflector on a second surface 503b of the waveguide opposing the first surface 503a, wherein the reflector is configured to reflect the display light reflected by a region of the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror towards another region of the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror (Fig. 5, [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1, wherein
the waveguide has a bar shape and extends in the first direction (Fig. 5, [0096]).
Regarding claim 8, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1, wherein
the waveguide is configured to receive an array of pupils replicated along a second direction and replicate the array of pupils along the first direction (Fig. 4, 5, [0095], an array of pupils 404a-404f can be replicated by the waveguide of Fig. 4 along a second direction 440 and then being input to the waveguide of Fig. 5 producing multiple pupils R0-R7 along the first direction).
Regarding claim 10, Cole discloses a near-eye display comprising ([0002]):
a first pupil expander extending in a first direction (i.e., at an angle α with respect to the X axis) (Fig. 5), the first pupil expander comprising:
a first waveguide 500 transparent to display light 510 and configured to guide the display light along the first direction (Fig. 5, [0096]); and
a first partial reflective mirror on a first surface 503a of the waveguide, wherein the partial reflective mirror is parallel to the first direction and is characterized by different reflectivity at a first plurality of regions along the first direction (Fig. 5, [0096]), wherein
each region of the first plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror (e.g., regions corresponding to rays R0-R7) is configured to partially reflect incident light and partially transmit the incident light through the region of the first plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror (Fig. 5, [0096]-[0099]); and
a second pupil expander (shown in Fig. 4) configured to split the display light transmitted from each region of the first plurality of regions R0-R7 of the first partial reflective mirror (shown in Fig. 5) at a second plurality of regions 404a-404f along a second direction 440 that is different from the first direction (Fig. 4, 5, [0095]).
Regarding claim 14, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10, wherein
the first waveguide 500 of the first pupil expander is configured to reflect the display light at a second surface 503b opposing the first surface 503a by total internal reflection (Fig. 5, [0097]).
Regarding claim 15, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10, wherein
the first pupil expander includes a first reflector on a second surface 503b of the first waveguide opposing the first surface 503a, the first reflector configured to reflect the display light reflected by a region of the first plurality of regions of the first partial reflective mirror towards another region of the first plurality of regions of the first partial reflective mirror (Fig. 5, [0096]).
Regarding claim 16, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10, wherein
the second pupil expander comprises:
a second waveguide (shown in Fig. 4) configured to guide the display light along the second direction 440; and a second partial reflective mirror on a first surface 420 of the second waveguide, wherein the second partial reflective mirror is parallel to the second direction 440 and is characterized by different reflectivity at the second plurality of regions along the second direction (Fig. 4, [0092]), wherein
each region of the second plurality of regions of the second partial reflective mirror is configured to partially reflect incident light and partially transmit the incident light through the region of the second plurality of regions of the second partial reflective mirror (Fig. 4, [0092]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 17, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 16, wherein
the second waveguide of the second pupil expander is configured to reflect the display light at a second surface 410 opposing the first surface 420 of the second waveguide by total internal reflection (Fig. 4, [0093]).
Regarding claim 18, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 16, wherein
the second pupil expander further comprises a second reflector on a second surface 410 of the second waveguide opposing the first surface 420 of the second waveguide, the second reflector configured to reflect the display light reflected by a region of the second plurality of regions of the second partial reflective mirror towards another region of the second plurality of regions of the second partial reflective mirror (Fig. 4, [0093]).
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 2-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole.
Regarding claim 2, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1.
Cole does not disclose wherein the reflectivity at the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror increases along the first direction.
In Cole, the reflectivity at the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror 503a decreases along the first direction ([0096]).
The parameter of the partial reflectivity of the graded reflective coatings on the surface 503a of the waveguide 500 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the appearance of the replicas R0-R7 (see [0096] in Cole).
Cole discloses the claimed invention except for increasing reflectivity of the plurality of regions along the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the reflectivity increases along the propagating distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the reflectivity along the waveguide because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. Here, when the reflectivity is higher at the end of the waveguide (and thus the transmissivity of R7 is lower than that of R0) the overall pupil seen by the viewer is less confusing.
Regarding claim 3, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 2.
Cole does not disclose wherein reflectivity at each respective region of the plurality of regions of the partial reflective mirror is uniform within the respective region.
In Cole, the reflectivity at the plurality of regions (corresponding to R0-R7) of the partial reflective mirror 503a decreases along the first direction ([0096]), but Cole is silent as to the reflectivity being uniform within each region.
The parameter of the partial reflectivity of the graded reflective coatings on the surface 503a of the waveguide 500 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the appearance of the replicas R0-R7 (see [0096] in Cole).
Cole discloses the claimed invention except for the reflectivity of the plurality of regions being uniform with each region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the reflectivity is uniform with each region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the reflectivity along the waveguide because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. Here, when the reflectivity (and thus the transmissivity) is uniform within each region the overall pupil seen by the viewer is less confusing.
Regarding claim 4, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 2, wherein
reflectivity of the partial reflective mirror increases continuously along the first direction (see [0096], as applied in claim 2).
Regarding claim 11, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10.
Cole does not disclose wherein the reflectivity at the first plurality of regions of the first partial reflective mirror increases along the first direction.
In Cole, the reflectivity at the first plurality of regions of the first partial reflective mirror 503a decreases along the first direction ([0096]).
The parameter of the partial reflectivity of the graded reflective coatings on the surface 503a of the waveguide 500 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the appearance of the replicas R0-R7 (see [0096] in Cole).
Cole discloses the claimed invention except for increasing reflectivity of the plurality of regions along the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the reflectivity increases along the propagating distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the reflectivity along the waveguide because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. Here, when the reflectivity is higher at the end of the waveguide (and thus the transmissivity of R7 is lower than that of R0) the overall pupil seen by the viewer is less confusing.
Regarding claim 12, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 11.
Cole does not disclose wherein reflectivity at each respective region of the first plurality of regions of the first partial reflective mirror is uniform within the respective region.
In Cole, the reflectivity at the plurality of regions (corresponding to R0-R7) of the partial reflective mirror 503a decreases along the first direction ([0096]), but Cole is silent as to the reflectivity being uniform within each region.
The parameter of the partial reflectivity of the graded reflective coatings on the surface 503a of the waveguide 500 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the appearance of the replicas R0-R7 (see [0096] in Cole).
Cole discloses the claimed invention except for the reflectivity of the plurality of regions being uniform with each region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the reflectivity is uniform with each region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the reflectivity along the waveguide because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. Here, when the reflectivity (and thus the transmissivity) is uniform within each region the overall pupil seen by the viewer is less confusing.
Regarding claim 13, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 11, wherein
reflectivity of the first partial reflective mirror increases continuously along the first direction (see [0096], as applied in claim 11).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Schultz et al. (US 2021/0215941, hereinafter, “Schultz”).
Regarding claim 19, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10.
Cole does not disclose wherein the second pupil expander includes one or more grating couplers configured to couple the display light into and/or out of the second waveguide.
Schultz discloses a near-eye display (Fig. 7, [0014]). In one embodiment, Schultz discloses that light can be coupled into and out of waveguide 22 used as a pupil expander by forming a diffractive grating IDO and ODO, respectively, on a surface of the waveguide (Fig. 1, [0041]).
Both Cole and Schultz disclose pupil expanders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the second pupil expander of Fig. 4 comprises grating couplers to couple the display light into and out of the second waveguide, as taught by Schultz, for achieving a smaller optical device since the grating couplers may be simply formed on a surface of the waveguide.
Claims 9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Sharlin et al. (US 2023/0194770, hereinafter, “Sharlin”).
Regarding claim 9, Cole discloses the pupil expander of claim 1.
Cole does not disclose further comprising one or more partial reflective mirrors embedded in the waveguide and parallel to a surface of the waveguide and the first direction.
Sharlin discloses a near-eye display (Abstract). In one embodiment, light 30 is coupled into waveguide 50 and after propagating in the waveguide it exits to an eye-box 70 (Fig. 1A, [0045], [0048]-[0049]). The waveguide 50 comprises a plurality of partial reflective mirrors 56a-56N embedded in the waveguide ([0047]).
Both Cole and Sharlin disclose near-eye displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the pupil expander comprises one or more partial reflective mirrors embedded in the waveguide, as taught by Sharlin, for achieving more light coupling out of the waveguide and into the eye-box ([0047] in Sharlin).
Cole/Sharlin does not disclose the embedded mirrors being parallel to the surfaces of the waveguide (in Cole/Sharlin, the mirrors are non-parallel, [0047] in Sharlin).
The parameter of the relative angle between the embedded mirrors and the surfaces of the waveguide is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the amount of outcoupling of light from the waveguide ([0047] in Sharlin)
Cole/Sharlin discloses the claimed invention except for the embedded mirrors being parallel with the waveguide surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole/Sharlin so that the embedded mirrors are parallel with the waveguide surfaces, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the orientation of the embedded mirrors because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 20, Cole discloses the near-eye display of claim 10.
Cole does not disclose wherein the first pupil expander includes one or more partial reflective mirrors embedded in the first waveguide and parallel to a surface of the first waveguide and the first direction.
Sharlin discloses a near-eye display (Abstract). In one embodiment, light 30 is coupled into waveguide 50 and after propagating in the waveguide it exits to an eye-box 70 (Fig. 1A, [0045], [0048]-[0049]). The waveguide 50 comprises a plurality of partial reflective mirrors 56a-56N embedded in the waveguide ([0047]).
Both Cole and Sharlin disclose near-eye displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole so that the first pupil expander comprises one or more partial reflective mirrors embedded in the first waveguide, as taught by Sharlin, for achieving more light coupling out of the first waveguide and into the eye-box ([0047] in Sharlin).
Cole/Sharlin does not disclose the embedded mirrors being parallel to the surfaces of the first waveguide (in Cole/Sharlin, the mirrors are non-parallel, [0047] in Sharlin).
The parameter of the relative angle between the embedded mirrors and the surfaces of the waveguide is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the amount of outcoupling of light from the waveguide ([0047] in Sharlin)
Cole/Sharlin discloses the claimed invention except for the embedded mirrors being parallel with the waveguide surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cole/Sharlin so that the embedded mirrors are parallel with the waveguide surfaces, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the orientation of the embedded mirrors because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christmas (US 2024/0036308, hereinafter “Christmas”) discloses a display device (Abstract). In Christmas, two waveguide pupil expanders 520 and 530 are positioned in order so that a plurality of pupils is created in two different directions X and Z (Fig. 6B, [0102]-[0103]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights