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 .
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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150 are similar, because both because Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150 are claiming same claim subject matters.
19/056,523 U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150
Claim 1. A waveguide display comprising:
Claim 1. A waveguide display comprising:
an input image node (IIN) providing light of a first wavelength over an angular range;
an input image node (IIN) providing light of a first wavelength over an angular range;
a first waveguide comprising at least one input grating configured to couple light from the IIN into a total internal reflection (TIR) path in the first waveguide;
a first waveguide comprising at least one input grating configured to couple light from the IIN into a total internal reflection (TIR) path in the first waveguide;
at least one grating for providing beam expansion in at least one direction and
extracting light from the first waveguide; and
at least one grating for providing beam expansion in at least one direction and
extracting light from the first waveguide; and
wherein a spatially varying numerical aperture for providing uniform illumination at an eyebox of the waveguide display is provided by tilting a stop plane containing an IIN exit pupil relative to an input grating plane containing the at least one input grating of the first waveguide.
wherein the IIN comprises a spatially-varying numerical aperture component which
forms a spatially varying numerical aperture across the angular range of the IIN to provide
uniform illumination at an eyebox of the waveguide display.
Claims 2-21 of the instant application and Claims 2-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150 are rejected for same reasons, because both because Claims 2-21 of the instant application and Claims 2-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150 are claiming same claim subject matters.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of claims 1-21 are similar to the patented features of parent case.
The instant Application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentability distinct from each other because the instant Application claim is generic to all that is recited in the above patent claim. The more specific anticipates the broader (see In re Goodman - 29 USPQ2d 2010), also see Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d, 1869 and Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 1894). Therefore, the instant claim is anticipated by the above patent claim.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-21 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.
Claims 12-21 recites the limitation " The optical display" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“The optical display” should be recited as “The waveguide display”.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Balmer et al (US 12517368 B1) disclosure, (see Figs. 1-5; Column 1, lines 31-65), Kim et al teaches a A head-mounted display with a center-mounted system for peripheral projection is disclosed. The head mounted display includes a power source and a housing. The center-housing includes a tracker component that tracks eye movement corresponding to a viewable area on a peripheral portion of a lens of the head mounted computing device. The housing also includes a tinting component that obscures at least a portion of an opposite lens of the head mounted computing device. The housing further includes an image component comprising an image source. In some examples, the tracker component, upon tracking the eye movement towards the viewable area, obscures the opposite lens, and activates the image source. In other examples, the tracker component, upon tracking the eye movement away from the viewable area, unobscures the opposite lens, and deactivates the image source.
The prior art of Montfort et al (US 20230375787 A1) disclosure, (see Figs. 1-12; Paragraph 0027-0092), Montfort et al teaches a head-mounted display system configured to be worn by a user can include a head-mountable frame, a light projection system configured to output light to provide image content to the user's eye, a waveguide supported by the frame. The waveguide can be configured to guide at least a portion of the light from the light projection system coupled into the waveguide to present said image content to said user's eye. The system can include a grating having a first reflective diffractive optical element including a volume phase holographic grating and a second reflective diffractive optical element including a liquid crystal polarization grating. The combination of the first and second reflective diffractive optical elements can be disposed on one side of the waveguide and be configured to operate as a transmissive diffractive optical element.
11. 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.
12. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
13. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their 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.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights