DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 5 August 2025 and 19 November 2025 have been fully considered by Examiner. Annotated copies are included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-3 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekolste (US-2016/0116739) in view of Wall (US-2017/0131545).
Regarding claim 1: Tekolste discloses an augmented reality system (figs 1-2, [0145], and [0155] of Tekolste), comprising: a light source configured to generate a virtual light beam (fig 6(200-208) and [0165] of Tekolste – “Image injection devices 200, 202, 204, 206, 208 may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides”); and a light guiding optical element having an entry portion (fig 6(182-190) and [0165] of Tekolste – “Image injection devices 200, 202, 204, 206, 208 may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides 182, 184, 186, 188, 190”), an orthogonal pupil expander (fig 9A-9B(911a, 911b) and [0190] of Tekolste) and an exit portion (figs 9A-9B(909a,909b) and [0192] of Tekolste), wherein the light source and the light guiding optical element are configured such that the virtual light beam: (a) enters the light guiding optical element through the entry portion ([0166] of Tekolste), (b) propagates through the light guiding optical element by substantially total internal reflection ([0168] of Tekolste – “the waveguides 182, 184, 186, 188, 190 may be configured to propagate light within each respective waveguide by total internal reflection (TIR)”), and (c) divides into a plurality of virtual light beamlets by interacting with the orthogonal pupil expander (figs 9A-9B(911a,911b), [0190], and [0192] of Tekolste – “first and second light distributing elements 911a and 911b can be referred to as pupil expanders or orthogonal pupil expanders (OPEs)”; “first and the second light distributing elements 911a and 911b can divide the first and the second light beams propagating along the first and the second directions into multiple related beams that are redirected towards the first and the second outcoupling optical elements 909a and 909b”), wherein at least some of the plurality of virtual light beamlets exit the light guiding optical element through the exit portion ([0191]-[0192] of Tekolste – distributed light exits the outcoupling optical elements), and wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises a plurality of polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) swatches ([0193] of Tekolste).
Tekolste does not disclose a mixed reality system.
Wall discloses a mixed reality system ([0040] of Wall).
Tekolste and Wall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely waveguides in head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a mixed reality system, as taught by Wall. The suggestion for doing so would have been that a mixed reality system is another type of virtually interactive system to which the teachings of Tekolste could be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tekolste according to the relied-upon teachings of Wall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Tekolste does not disclose wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises a first orthogonal pupil sub-expander and a second orthogonal pupil sub-expander, wherein each of the first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders divides light beams entering the respective first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders.
Wall discloses wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises a first orthogonal pupil sub-expander and a second orthogonal pupil sub-expander, wherein each of the first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders divides light beams entering the respective first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders (figs 1A-1C (114), [0018], and [0028] of Wall – intermediate component 114 can be implemented as a mirror based pupil expander; one for each pupil).
Tekolste and Wall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely waveguides in head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the orthogonal pupil expander comprise a first orthogonal pupil sub-expander and a second orthogonal pupil sub-expander, wherein each of the first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders divides light beams entering the respective first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders, as taught by Wall. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more refined control of the light beams, and thus a better overall output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tekolste according to the relied-upon teachings of Wall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 2 (as rejected above), wherein each of the first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders is a respective flat sheet, and wherein the first and second orthogonal pupil sub-expanders are stacked on top of each other (fig 11A and [0211] of Tekolste – waveguides, including for pupil sub-expanders, can be multiple stacked flat sheets).
Regarding claim 8: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises first and second reflective edges (figs 9A-9C(911a,911b), and [0190]-[0191] of Tekolste – orthogonal pupil expanders can be configured according to a variety of light distribution patterns, and thus have reflective edges).
Regarding claim 9: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 8 (as rejected above), wherein the first and second reflective edges are orthogonal to each other (fig 9A(911a,911b), and [0190] of Tekolste – orthogonal pupil expanders 911a, 911b, as shown in fig 9A, are orthogonal to each other, and thus so are their reflective edges).
Regarding claim 10: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 8 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander further comprises a third reflective edge (fig 11A and [0211] of Tekolste – at least three reflective edges shown).
Regarding claim 11: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises an in-coupling grating and a region of high diffraction disposed opposite of the in-coupling grating (figs 9A-9B and [0193] of Tekolste – volume phase holographic material produces high first-order diffraction).
Regarding claim 12: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises a first light modifier configured to absorb light in a first wavelength range (fig 9C(913b,915b) and [0188] of Tekolste – selective filter and absorber).
Regarding claim 13: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 12 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander further comprises a second light modifier configured to absorb light in a second wavelength range ([0188] of Tekolste – 913a and 915a selectively filter and absorb a wavelength range).
Regarding claim 14: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein the first and second light modifiers are orthogonal to each other (figs 9A&9C(913a,913b) and [0188] of Tekolste – as can be seen, the selective filters 913a, 913b are orthogonal, and thus so are their respective absorbers 915a, 915b).
Regarding claim 15: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein the orthogonal pupil expander further comprises a third light modifier configured to absorb light in a third wavelength range (fig 8 and [0176] of Tekolste – one for each wavelength band for RGB).
Regarding claim 16: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Tekolste does not disclose wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises diffractive optical elements forming a “V” shape.
Wall discloses wherein the orthogonal pupil expander comprises diffractive optical elements forming a “V” shape (fig 12 and [0131] of Wall – k-vector defining angle for “V” shape).
Tekolste and Wall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely waveguides in head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the orthogonal pupil expander comprises diffractive optical elements forming a “V” shape, as taught by Wall. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow finer control of the light pattern. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tekolste according to the relied-upon teachings of Wall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17: Tekolste discloses an augmented reality system (figs 1-2, [0145], and [0155] of Tekolste), comprising: a light source configured to generate a virtual light beam (fig 6(200-208) and [0165] of Tekolste – “Image injection devices 200, 202, 204, 206, 208 may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides”); a light guiding optical element having an entry portion (fig 6(182-190) and [0165] of Tekolste – “Image injection devices 200, 202, 204, 206, 208 may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides 182, 184, 186, 188, 190”), an orthogonal pupil expander (fig 9A-9B(911a, 911b) and [0190] of Tekolste) and a plurality of exit pupil expanders (fig 11B(1250-1254), [0192], and [0224] of Tekolste – outcoupling optical elements can be exit pupil expanders); and a plurality of light blockers to selectively block light to the plurality of exit pupil expanders ([0193] of Tekolste – various possible structures which selectively block light (gratings, etc.)), wherein the light source and the light guiding optical element are configured such that the virtual light beam: (a) enters the light guiding optical element through the entry portion ([0166] of Tekolste), (b) propagates through the light guiding optical element by substantially total internal reflection ([0168] of Tekolste – “the waveguides 182, 184, 186, 188, 190 may be configured to propagate light within each respective waveguide by total internal reflection (TIR)”), (c) divides into a plurality of first virtual light beamlets by interacting with the orthogonal pupil expander (figs 9A-9B(911a,911b), [0190], and [0192] of Tekolste – “first and second light distributing elements 911a and 911b can be referred to as pupil expanders or orthogonal pupil expanders (OPEs)”; “first and the second light distributing elements 911a and 911b can divide the first and the second light beams propagating along the first and the second directions into multiple related beams that are redirected towards the first and the second outcoupling optical elements 909a and 909b”), the plurality of first virtual light beamlets entering respective ones of the plurality of exit pupil expanders (fig 6(282-290), [0168], and [0224] of Tekolste – outcoupling optical elements can be exit pupil expanders (EPEs)), and (d) divides into a plurality of second virtual light beamlets by interacting with the plurality of exit pupil expanders ([0173] of Tekolste), wherein at least some of the plurality of second virtual light beamlets exit the light guiding optical element through the exit pupil expander ([0191]-[0192] of Tekolste – distributed light exits the outcoupling optical elements), and wherein the plurality of light blockers comprises a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) out-coupling grating ([0193] of Tekolste).
Tekolste does not disclose a mixed reality system.
Wall discloses a mixed reality system ([0040] of Wall).
Tekolste and Wall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely waveguides in head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a mixed reality system, as taught by Wall. The suggestion for doing so would have been that a mixed reality system is another type of virtually interactive system to which the teachings of Tekolste could be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tekolste according to the relied-upon teachings of Wall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein the light guiding optical element is transparent to a real-world light beam ([0168] of Tekolste – “the one or more outcoupling optical elements 282, 284, 286, 288, 290 may be formed in a layer of material that is attached to a transparent substrate to form the waveguides 182, 184, 186, 188, 190”).
Regarding claim 19: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein each of the plurality of exit pupil expanders comprises a substantially flat sheet, such that the plurality of exit pupil expanders comprises a stack of substantially flat sheets (fig 11A and [0211] of Tekolste – waveguides, including for pupil sub-expanders, can be multiple stacked flat sheets).
Regarding claim 20: Tekolste in view of Wall discloses the system of claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein at least one of the plurality of light blockers is disposed adjacent an edge of the orthogonal pupil expander (fig 9C(915b) and [0188] of Tekolste – as can be seen, the absorber 915b is set adjacent to the orthogonal pupil expander 905/913b).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4-7 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.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Travers et al., US-2014/0300966-A1, which teaches an image generator that generates angularly related beams over a range of angles for forming a virtual image and a waveguide that propagates the angularly related beams over a limited range of angles.
B. Klug et al., US-2017/0010466-A1, which teaches architectures for selectively in-coupling one or more streams of light from a multiplexed light stream into a waveguide, where the multiplexed light stream can have light with different characteristics, and the waveguide can comprise in-coupling elements that can selectively couple one or more streams of light from the multiplexed light stream into the waveguide while transmitting one or more other streams of light from the multiplexed light stream.
C. Schultz, US-2017/0371160-A1, which teaches a head-mounted imaging device with a particularly formulated set of optics and waveguides.
D. Schultz et al., US-10,007,117-B2, which teaches an imaging light guide that has a waveguide and an in-coupling diffractive optic formed on the waveguide and disposed to direct image-bearing light beams into the waveguide, with an array of two or more at least partially reflective surfaces that are oriented in parallel and disposed to expand the image-bearing light beams from the in-coupling diffractive optic in a first dimension and to direct the expanded image-bearing light beams toward an out-coupling diffractive optic.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights