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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group 1, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 01/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Therefore, claims 7-9 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/25 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification/Drawings
3. The specification and drawings filed on 10/07/25 are objected because some elements in the drawings are not described in specification. For example: elements 133, 134.
Double Patenting
4. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of Ronen (U.S. Patent No. 12,436,062) in view of Richards et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0253185). Hereafter, “Ronen ‘062” and “Richards”.
As to claim 1, Ronen ‘062 claims:
measuring parallelism and homogeneity of refractive index of facets of a lightguide optical element (LOE), the LOE including a light-transmitting substrate having first and second major surfaces parallel to each other such that light coupled into the light-transmitting substrate is trapped between the first and second major surfaces by total internal reflection and the facets configured to couple the light out of the substrate (claim 1, lines 1-8), the method comprising:
placing a first slit optically between a projector configured to emit light corresponding to an image and the first major surface, the first slit placed such that light from the projector travels through the first slit to the first major surface and to a first facet of the facets (claim 1, lines 9-18);
placing a second slit optically between the second major surface and a detector, the second slit placed to block light transmitted by the first facet and such that light reflected by the first facet and a second facet, from the facets, travels from the second facet to the second major surface and through the second slit to the detector (claim 1, lines 18-25);
deducing the parallelism between the first facet and the second facet based on a shift of the image as detected by the detector relative to light transmitted normal to the first and second major surfaces through a portion of the substrate not including a facet from the facets (claim 1, lines 26-31);
placing the second slit optically between the second major surface and the detector such that light from the projector travels through the first slit to the first major surface and to the first facet and light transmitted through the first facet travels from the first facet to the second major surface and through the second slit to the detector (claim 1, lines 32-40); and
determining the homogeneity or deviation in refractive index between surfaces of the first facet based on the light transmitted through the first facet, as detected by the detector, relative to light transmitted normal to the first and second major surfaces through a portion of the substrate not including a facet from the facets (claim 1, lines 41-47).
However, Ronen ‘062 does not claim method for measuring parallelism of facets. Richards teaches method for measuring parallelism of facets, ([0001], [0013], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to include in Ronen ‘062 method for measuring parallelism of facets by Richards for the purpose of measuring parallelism in lightguide surfaces (Richards, [0001], [0013], lines 1-2).
As to claim 2, Ronen ‘062 claims laterally moving the LOE relative to the first and second slits, or viceversa, to measure parallelism and homogeneity of refractive index of additional facets of the LOE in claim 2
As to claim 3, Ronen ‘062 claims calibrating by capturing at the detector an image emitted by the projector that travels through the portion of the substrate not including a facet in claim 3
As to claim 4, Ronen ‘062 claims:
measuring parallelism of facets of a lightguide optical element (LOE), the LOE including a light-transmitting substrate having first and second major surfaces parallel to each other such that light coupled into the light-transmitting substrate is trapped between the first and second major surfaces by total internal reflection and the facets configured to couple the light out of the substrate (claim 6, lines 1-8), the method comprising:
placing a first slit between a projector configured to emit light corresponding to an image and the first major surface, the first slit placed such that light from the projector travels through the first slit to the first major surface and to a first facet of the facets (claim 6, lines 9-15);
placing a second slit between a detector and the second major surface, the second slit placed to block light transmitted by the first facet and such that light reflected by the first facet and a second facet, from the facets, travels from the second facet to the second major surface and through the second slit to the detector (claim 6, lines 15-22); and
deducing the parallelism between the first facet and the second facet based on a shift of the image as detected by the detector relative to light transmitted normal to the first and second major surfaces through a portion of the substrate not including a facet from the facets (claim 6, lines 23-28).
However, Ronen ‘062 does not claim method for measuring parallelism of facets. Richards teaches method for measuring parallelism of facets, ([0001], [0013], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to include in Ronen ‘062 method for measuring parallelism of facets by Richards for the purpose of measuring parallelism in lightguide surfaces (Richards, [0001], [0013], lines 1-2).
As to claim 5, Ronen ‘062 claims laterally moving the LOE relative to the first and second slits, or viceversa, to measure parallelism and homogeneity of refractive index of additional facets of the LOE in claim 2.
As to claim 6, Ronen ‘062 claims in claim calibrating by capturing at the detector an image emitted by the projector that travels through a portion of the substrate not including a facet in claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 1 and 4.
8. As claims 1 and 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring parallelism of facets of a lightguide optical element (LOE), the LOE including a light-transmitting substrate having first and second major surfaces parallel to each other such that light coupled into the light-transmitting substrate is trapped between the first and second major surfaces by total internal reflection and the facets configured to couple the light out of the substrate, the system comprising the first slit disposed such that light from the projector travels through the first slit to the first major surface and to a first facet of the facets and such that the second slit is disposed optically between the second major surface and a detector, the second slit disposed as to block light transmitted by the first facet and such that light reflected by the first facet and a second facet, from the facets, travels from the second facet to the second major surface and through the second slit to the detector; deducing the parallelism between the first facet and the second facet based on a shift of the image as detected by the detector relative to light transmitted normal to the first and second major surfaces through a portion of the substrate not including a facet from the facets; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Closest art
9. The closet art is the references of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0408683). Yamaguchi disclosed the first slit, the second slit detector, reflected light (figure 1). However, Yamaguchi does not teach light from the projector travels through the first slit to the first major surface and to a first facet, the second slit is disposed optically between the second major surface and a detector, the second slit disposed as to block light transmitted by the first facet and such that light reflected by the first facet and a second facet, from the facets, travels from the second facet to the second major surface and through the second slit to the detector.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
February 10, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights