DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. The Notice of Allowance mailed August 10, 2026 is withdrawn in view of the IDS filed August 5, 2026, as indicated by the Notice of Withdrawal from Issue mailed September 8, 2026.
2. Claims 1 – 9 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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 § 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.
5. Claims 1 – 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0337794) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0094052) in view of Suzuki (JP 2005-189385). For references to Suzuki, please see the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Sorg teaches: a video laser module (FIG. 1; paragraph [0048]; planar light circuit 1 that includes laser diodes 10 – 12) comprising:
a substrate (FIGS. 1, 5A; paragraph [0049]; substrate 13);
an optical waveguide layer formed on the substrate (FIGS. 1, 5A; paragraph [0049]; waveguide 14);
a visible laser light source configured to output visible light (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0006], [0051], [0052]; laser diodes 10 – 12 are blue lasers, red lasers, and green lasers that are combined in RGB pixels for display output of visible light for RGB emission); and
wherein the optical waveguide layer includes:
a first optical waveguide in which the visible light having a wavelength of 380 nm to 800 nm propagates (FIGS. 1, 5A; paragraphs [0006], [0051]; waveguide 14 propagates visible light between inlets 16 – 18 and output 19. Visible light is encompassed by the range of 380 nm to 800 nm); and
a visible light output port of the first optical waveguide from which the visible light is output (FIGS. 1, 5A; paragraphs [0006], [0049] – [0051]; waveguide 14 includes outlet 19 from which visible light is output / emitted),
the visible laser light source includes:
a first visible laser light source configured to output first visible light (FIG. 1; paragraph [0051]; first laser diode 10 that outputs first visible light to first inlet 16);
a second visible light source configured to output second visible light (FIG. 1; paragraph [0051]; second laser diode 11 that outputs second visible light to second inlet 17); and
a third visible light source configured to output first visible light (FIG. 1; paragraph [0051]; third laser diode 12 that outputs third visible light to third inlet 18), and
the first optical waveguide includes:
a first multiplexing part that multiplexes the first visible light and the second visible to generate multiplexed light and propagates the multiplexed light into the waveguide section (FIG. 1; paragraph [0049]; first combiner 20 combines first visible light applied to inlet 16 by first laser diode 10 and second visible light applied to inlet 17 by second laser diode 11. This light is propagated past the first combiner 20. The area past the first combiner 20 is interpreted as the “waveguide section”).
Sorg fails to explicitly disclose: an electrical signal generation element, the electrical signal generation element generates an electrical signal for controlling a drive current of the visible laser light source.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Huang discloses an optical emitter that uses lasers to emit visible light of red, blue, and green wavelengths (paragraph [0024]).
With regard to claim 1, Huang teaches: an electrical signal generation element, the electrical signal generation element generates an electrical signal for controlling a drive current of the visible laser light source (FIG. 1A; paragraphs [0024], [0046]; controller 13 adjusts or calibrates a current or voltage provided to optical emitter 10 and thus the visible laser light source).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg and Huang to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a laser module having a light source that propagates visible light in an optical waveguide for RGB display, as taught by Sorg, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a laser module having a controller that controls a current or voltage applied to a light source to provide visible light for RGB display, as taught by Huang, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sorg and Huang would yield the predictable result of a laser module having a controller that controls a current or voltage applied to a light source that propagates visible light in an optical waveguide for RGB display. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Huang into the device of Sorg in order to fill in the gaps as to how the light sources of Sorg are driven. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate such a well-known and conventional method of controlling the drive current of a light source, as taught by Huang, into the device of Sorg in order for the light output thereof to be generate images as disclosed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg and Huang to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Neither Song nor Huang explicitly disclose: the first optical waveguide includes: a waveguide section; and a second multiplexing part that is separated from the first multiplexing part by the waveguide section and that multiplexes the multiplexed light from the waveguide section and the third visible light.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses a branch type optical waveguide (Title).
With regard to claim 1, Suzuki teaches: the first optical waveguide includes: a waveguide section; and a second multiplexing part that is separated from the first multiplexing part by the waveguide section and that multiplexes the multiplexed light from the waveguide section and the third visible light (FIG. 5; red light 6R and green light 6G are multiplexed at a first “multiplexing part” where these light paths meet. Subsequently, this multiplexed red and green light are then multiplexed at multiplexing core portion 1C [second multiplexing part] with blue light 6B. The portion of the waveguide 60 between these described multiplexing parts is the “waveguide section” which separates the first and second multiplexing parts. See page 6, ¶s 4 & 5, and page 7, ¶6 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, and Suzuki to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a laser module having three sources of visible light that propagate three lights in an optical waveguide for RGB display where the three lights are multiplexed together, as taught by Sorg, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a laser module having three sources of visible light that propagate three lights in an optical waveguide for RGB display where two of the lights are multiplexed together into first multiplexed light at a first multiplexing part, and then the first multiplexed light is transmitted to a “waveguide section” and is then multiplexed together with a third of the lights at a second multiplexing part, as taught by Suzuki, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sorg and Suzuki would yield the predictable result of a laser module having three sources of visible light that propagate three lights in an optical waveguide for RGB display where two of the lights are multiplexed together into first multiplexed light at a first multiplexing part, and then the first multiplexed light is transmitted to a “waveguide section” and is then multiplexed together with a third of the lights at a second multiplexing part. In other words, it would have been obvious to simply substitute the particular arrangement of light pathways and multiplexing portions of Suzuki for that disclosed by Sorg. Both Sorg (FIG. 1 – 3) and Suzuki (FIGS. 1, 6 – 8) discloses a single multiplexing part for combining three light sources into one multiplexed light for output. Suzuki’s disclosure of an alternative configuration with two multiplexing parts and a “waveguide section” therebetween is an obvious alternative to the configuration disclosed by Sorg. A simple substitution of one known configuration for multiplexing light in a waveguide would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention and would require only the known techniques required by Suzuki. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg and Huang to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Sorg teaches: wherein the optical waveguide layer is formed of a material containing lithium niobate (FIG. 5D; paragraph [0083]; waveguide 14 may include material 104 which is lithium niobate).
6. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Huang in view of Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ogino (U.S. Pub. 2019/0285906).
Regarding claim 3, Sorg teaches: further comprising: a photodetector (FIG. 4A; paragraph [0075]; planar light circuit 1 may include a photodiode 91).
Neither Sorg nor Huang nor Suzuki explicitly disclose: a synchronization signal generation device that generates a synchronization signal for synchronizing the electrical signal generation element and the photodetector.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Ogino discloses a laser device that emits laser light (paragraph [0032]).
With regard to claim 3, Ogino teaches: a synchronization signal generation device that generates a synchronization signal for synchronizing the electrical signal generation element and the photodetector (FIG. 1; paragraph [0033]; control device 11 [synchronization signal generation device] generates a synchronization control signal that performs synchronization of a light source device 12 and a light deflector 13 based on an output of the light source device, signal output from the light deflector 13, and light reception signals from photodetectors 18/19. This results in the synchronization of the driving of light source device 12 [via the “electrical signal generation element”] and the photodetectors 18/19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Ogino to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a laser module having a controller that controls a current or voltage applied to a light source that propagates visible light in an optical waveguide for RGB display, as taught by the combination of Sorg and Huang, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a control device that generates a signal for synchronizing the driving of a light source with a photodetector, as taught by Ogino, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, and Ogino would yield the predictable result of a laser module having a controller with a first component [electrical signal generation element] that controls a current or voltage applied to a light source that propagates visible light in an optical waveguide for RGB display, and a second component [synchronization signal generation device] that generates a signal for synchronizing the driving of a light source with a photodetector. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the synchronization aspect of the control device of Ogino into the combined device of Sorg and Huang in order to ensure that the photodetector(s) of Sorg are accurately monitoring light in real-time. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate this synchronization, as taught by Ogino, into the combined device of Sorg and Huang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Ogino to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Sorg teaches: wherein the photodetector is formed in the optical waveguide layer (FIGS. 4A, 4B; paragraphs [0075], [0076]; the photodiode(s) 91 are coupled to waveguide 14 between inlets 16 – 18 and first combiner 20. Accordingly, photodiode(s) are formed in the optical waveguide layer).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Huang in view of Suzuki in view of Ogino, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Yu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0276438).
Regarding claim 4, neither Sorg nor Huang nor Suzuki nor Ogino explicitly disclose: wherein the photodetector is either one of: a semiconductor detector using a pn junction of Si; a semiconductor detector using a pn junction of InGaAs; or a spin photodetector having a magnetoresistance effect function in which a first ferromagnetic layer, a spacer layer, and a second ferromagnetic layer are laminated.
However, Sorg discloses that the photodiode 91 may include silicone (paragraph [0075]).
With regard to claim 4, Yu teaches: wherein the photodetector is either one of: a semiconductor detector using a pn junction of Si (paragraph [0018]; a photodetector may be a silicon PN photodetector);
a semiconductor detector using a pn junction of InGaAs (paragraph [0018]; a photodetector may be an InGaAs PIN photodetector); or
a spin photodetector having a magnetoresistance effect function in which a first ferromagnetic layer, a spacer layer, and a second ferromagnetic layer are laminated.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, Ogino, and Yu to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to simply substitute one known photodetector for another. Sorg discloses using a silicon-based photodetector, while Yu gives specific examples of types of photodetectors that are known. Simply substituting one known photodetector for another would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, Ogino, and Yu to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Huang in view of Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Astier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,588,289) and
Regarding claim 7, neither Sorg nor Huang nor Suzuki explicitly disclose: wherein the substrate is a sapphire substrate.
With regard to claim 7, Astier teaches: wherein the substrate is a sapphire substrate (Abstract; an optical waveguide may be formed on a sapphire substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Astier to yield predictable results. More specifically, it would have been obvious to simply substitute one known substrate material, sapphire as disclosed by Astier, for another, glass or silica as disclosed by Sorg (paragraph [0050]). Such a simple substitution would only require knowing using known materials in known ways according to known processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Aster to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
9. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Huang in view of Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Adema (U.S. Pub. 2023/0228985).
Regarding claim 8, Sorg teaches: an optical engine comprising:
the video laser module according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Neither Sorg nor Huang nor Suzuki explicitly disclose: an optical scanning mirror; an optics system connecting the video laser module and the optical scanning mirror; a laser driver that controls the visible laser light source; an optical scanning mirror driver that controls the optical scanning mirror; and a video controller that controls the laser driver and the optical scanning mirror driver.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Adema discloses a laser projector 200 that projects images into the eye of a user from laser light sources and through waveguide 205 (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0026], [0027]).
With regard to claim 8, Adema teaches: an optical scanning mirror (FIG. 3; paragraph [0042]; scan mirror 308);
an optics system connecting the video laser module and the optical scanning mirror (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0027], [0042]; optical relay 210 [optics system] connects optical engine 202 [video laser module] and scan mirror 308);
a laser driver that controls the visible laser light source (FIG. 3; paragraph [0027]; a controller includes a first portion [laser driver] that is coupled to optical engine 202 to control the timing of emission of laser light from laser light sources of the optical engine 202);
an optical scanning mirror driver that controls the optical scanning mirror (FIG. 3 paragraph [0043]; scan mirror 308 is driven by varying actuation voltages. The component that provides these voltages is the “optical scanning mirror driver”); and
a video controller that controls the laser driver and the optical scanning mirror driver (paragraph [0025], [0027], [0060]; a processor controls the overall operations of the device including the generation of display content. This processor would therefore control both the “laser driver” and the “optical scanning mirror driver”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Adema to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a laser module having a light source that propagates visible light in an optical waveguide for RGB display, as taught by Sorg, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a laser projector having a processor that controls a laser driver for driving laser light sources to project light through an optics system and controls a scanning mirror for scanning the projected light to a waveguide that transmits the laser light to a user’s eye for RGB display, as taught by Adema, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sorg and Adema would yield the predictable result of the substrate and optical waveguide of Sorg being incorporated in the overall optical system of Adema. Such a combination merely implements the disclosure of Sorg in a more specific optical system by filling in the gaps of Sorg as to the particular optics involved in incorporating the disclosure thereof in a display. This amounts to nothing more than a simple substitution of one optical configuration of a portion of a laser projector for another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sorg, Huang, Suzuki, and Adema to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Sorg teaches: XR glasses comprising: an eyeglasses frame (FIG. 7B; paragraphs [0078], [0095]; the disclosure therein is applicable to augmented reality / virtual reality data glasses, such as glasses 125. It is implicit that such glasses 125 would include some form of an eyeglass frame, which was well-known and conventional in the art); and
the optical engine according to claim 8 mounted on the eyeglasses frame (FIG. 7B; paragraph [0095]; it is implicit that the arrangement 55, as modified by Adema with regard to claim 8, would be implemented as incorporated in or attached to the glasses 125).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) on August 5, 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights