Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/091,582

WAVEGUIDES WITH INTEGRATED OPTICAL ELEMENTS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Examiner
BOLOTIN, DMITRIY
Art Unit
2623
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Magic Leap Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
901 granted / 1116 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1137
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.1%
+3.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1116 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION It would be of great assistance to the Office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items: 1. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.). 2. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication). 3. Filing date. 4. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action. 5. Title of invention. 6. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7, 8 – 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parikka et al. (US 2004/0109642). As to claim 1, Parikka discloses a method of making a waveguide (the waveguide as shown in fig. 3), the method comprising: providing first (100 of fig. 1) and second molds (102 of fig. 1), the first mold and the second mold facing one another (100 and 102 are facing each other shown in fig. 1), wherein at least the first mold (100 of fig. 1) comprises an imprint of at least a part of at least one in-coupling optical element (model 1002 of fig. 1 for pressing or moulding microstructures [0025]); providing a polymer material (liquid polymer 106 of fig. 1 [0025]) between the first and second molds (between 100 and 102 of fig. 1); contacting the polymer material (106 of fig. 1) with the first (100 of fig. 1) and second molds (102 of fig. 1) such that the first mold (100 of fig. 1) transfers a corresponding imprint of the at least a part of the at least one in-coupling optical element (model 1002 of fig. 1) into the polymer material (106 of fig. 1); exposing the polymer material to a hardening process (utilizing ultraviolet-hardening process [0030]); and removing the polymer material from the first and second molds to provide the waveguide (providing waveguide utilizing diffractive structures [0026]). that includes the at least a part of the at least one in-coupling optical element (waveguide providing optical coupling element [0026]). As to claim 2 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein exposing the polymer material to a hardening process comprises exposing the polymer material to ultraviolet light (ultraviolet-hardening [0030]). As to claim 3 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the waveguide comprises a plurality of surfaces configured to guide light containing image information in the waveguide by total internal reflection (light propagates waveguide by total reflection [0036]). As to claim 7 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one in-coupling optical element comprises at least one grating (grating fabricated model 1002 of fig. 1). As to claim 8 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one in-coupling optical element comprises at least one lens that is arranged to impart optical power to the light that is received by the at least one in- coupling optical element (lens can be integrated to form a part of the binary grating structure of the coupling element 304 [0035]). As to claim 9 (dependent on 8), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one lens is formed in at least one surface of the waveguide and is monolithically integrated with the waveguide (the lens can be integrated to form a part of the binary grating structure of the coupling element 304 [0035]). As to claim 10 (dependent on 9), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one in-coupling optical element further comprises at least one grating (grating structure of the coupling element 304 [0035]), and wherein the at least one grating is aligned with the at least one lens such that the at least one lens is arranged to impart optical power to the light that is received by the at least one grating (the lens can be integrated to form a part of the binary grating structure of the coupling element 304 [0035], the lens 302 employs collimation or focusing to direct optical radiation [0036]). As to claim 12 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least a part of the at least one in-coupling optical element is monolithically integrated with the waveguide (coupling element 304 fabricated using model 1003 of fig. 1 is monolithically integrated with the waveguide [0026]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikka. As to claim 13 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the method, wherein: the waveguide and grating structure is made using first mold and second molds (fig. 1), but fails to disclose that at least the first mold further comprises an imprint of at least a part of at least one anti-reflective structure; the first mold further transfers a corresponding imprint of the at least a part of the at least one anti-reflective structure into the polymer material; and removing the polymer material from the first and second molds provides the waveguide that further includes the at least a part of the at least one anti-reflective structure. However, in another embodiment Parikka discloses a waveguide comprising anti-reflective structure (grating structure 206 of fig. 2 corresponding to the coupling element 308 of fig. 8), the anti-reflective structure (308 of fig. 3) made in correspondence with in-coupling element 304 of fig. 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 combine the teachings of the embodiments of Parikka such that the at least the first mold further comprises an imprint of at least a part of at least one anti-reflective structure; the first mold further transfers a corresponding imprint of the at least a part of the at least one anti-reflective structure into the polymer material; and removing the polymer material from the first and second molds provides the waveguide that further includes the at least a part of the at least one anti-reflective structure, with motivation to simply the manufacturing process. As to claim 14 (dependent on 13), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one anti-reflective (coupling element 308 of fig. 3) structure is separate from the at least one in-coupling optical element (in-coupling element 304 of fig. 3). As to claim 15 (dependent on 13), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least a part of the at least one anti-reflective structure is monolithically integrated with the waveguide (coupling element 308 of fig. 3, formed monolithically using mods according to fig. 1). As to claim 16 (dependent on 13), Parikka discloses the method, wherein the at least one anti-reflective structure (coupling element 308 of fig. 3) comprises at least one of an undulating pattern and a periodic pattern (periodic patter 306 as shown in fig. 2). Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikka in view of Moll et al. (US 2010/0220318). As to claim 5 (dependent on 1) and claim 6 (dependent on 5), Parikka discloses the method, but fails to disclose that the at least one in-coupling optical element comprises a tilted surface; wherein the tilted surface has curvature. In the same filed of endeavor, Moll disclose a waveguide (waveguide 305 of fig. 3) comprising at least one in-coupling optical element comprises a tilted surface (coupling lens 310 of fig. 3), wherein the tilted surface has curvature (curved coupling lens 310 of fig. 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 combine the teachings of Parikka and the teachings of Moll, such that at least one in-coupling optical element comprises a tilted surface having a curvature as disclosed by Moll, with motivation to provide light coupling to be relatively insensitive to misalignment (Moll, [0015]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikka in view of Patrick et al. (US 2016/0327714). As to claim 4 (dependent on 3), Parikka discloses the waveguide, but fails to disclose that at least one of the plurality of surfaces has a surface roughness between about 0.1 nm to about 2.0 nm. In the same filed of endeavor, Patrick discloses a waveguide wherein at least one of the plurality of surfaces has a surface roughness between about 0.1 nm to about 2.0 nm (waveguide material can have a surface roughness of 2nm or less (e.g. 1nm or less, 0.5nm or less, or 0.2 nm or less) [0133]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Parikka and the teachings of Patrick, such that the surface roughness of the waveguide was set to between about 0.1 nm to about 2.0 nm as disclosed by Patrick, with motivation to minimize light scattering events (Patrick [0133]). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikka in view of Schultz et al. (US 2012/0062998). As to claim 11 (dependent on 1), Parikka discloses the waveguide, but does not explicitly disclose that the at least one in-coupling optical element includes a prism. In the same filed of endeavor, Schultz discloses a waveguide, wherein the at least one in-coupling optical element includes a prism (prismatic surface 50 of the waveguide 30 of fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Parikka and the teachings of Schultz, such that the prismatic surface was provided for input coupling as disclosed by Schultz, with motivation to provide a simple design choice alternative for input coupling element, which would have only required routine skill. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY BOLOTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM. 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7772. 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. /DMITRIY BOLOTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603040
Pixel Circuit and Display Device Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591404
HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACE-DRIVEN DEMAND-AWARE SCREEN SHARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592167
CURVATURE VARIABLE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592190
PIXEL CIRCUIT, DISPLAY PANEL COMPRISING THE PIXEL CIRCUIT, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585357
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD OF DRIVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1116 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month