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
In order to expedite prosecution even though the claims have not been allowed, a double patenting rejection is provided below for applicant consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 26 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,523,879.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1, 3, 26 and 33, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 1-20. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
For example:
claims 1 and 3 are met by patent claims 1-10, as being broader than then patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims. Note also the first crystallographic axis being a z-axis, as recited in claim 3, is taken to be a matter of choice, since any axis can be assigned, and therefore meeting the limitations of patent claim 2;
claim 26 is met by patent claims 11 and 12, as being broader than then patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims; and
claim 33 is met by patent claims 13-20, as being broader than then patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the 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”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art Under 35 USC 102/103
No applicable rejection under 35 USC 102/103 over the prior art of record have been found for Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26 and 28-33.
The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter, and Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter Not Withstanding the Obvious Double Patenting Rejection Above:
The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance:
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 24
The prior art of record including Singh et al. (US 2022/0128817), taken to be the closest prior art, noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the head mounted display having the combination of elements, along with
the first eyepiece further comprising a first in-coupling element on the first surface, and a first out-coupling element comprising on the first or second surface; and a second eyepiece comprising a second substrate composed of the crystalline, transparent material having crystallographic axes in a second orientation with respect to the frame different from the first orientation, a second in-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate, and a second out-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate, as set forth in claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 24.
As described below, Singh et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however does not specifically show the first eyepiece further comprising a first in-coupling element on the first surface, and a first out-coupling element comprising on the first or second surface; and a second eyepiece comprising a second substrate composed of the crystalline, transparent material having crystallographic axes in a second orientation with respect to the frame different from the first orientation, a second in-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate, and a second out-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate, as recited in claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 24.
Further, since none of the prior art of record teaches the limitations as recited in claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 24, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention as filed would not consider it obvious to modify Singh et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include recited limitations.
Regarding claims 26 and 28-32
The prior art of record including Singh et al. (US 2022/0128817), taken to be the closest prior art, noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the article having the combination of structure, along with
a wafer composed of a crystalline, transparent material having crystallographic axes in a first orientation with respect to a surface of the wafer, a thickness of the wafer varying across the surface of the wafer such that for a cross-sectional profile of the wafer, the thickness increases monotonically from edges of the wafer to a location of maximum thickness away from the edges, as set forth in claims 26 and 28-32.
As described below, Singh et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however does not specifically show a wafer composed of a crystalline, transparent material having crystallographic axes in a first orientation with respect to a surface of the wafer, a thickness of the wafer varying across the surface of the wafer such that for a cross-sectional profile of the wafer, the thickness increases monotonically from edges of the wafer to a location of maximum thickness away from the edges, as recited in clams 26 and 28-32.
Further, since none of the prior art of record teaches the limitations as recited in claims 26 and 28-32, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention as filed would not consider it obvious to modify Singh et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include recited limitations.
Regarding claim 33
The prior art of record including Singh et al. (US 2022/0128817), taken to be the closest prior art, noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the eyepiece having the combination of elements, along with
a transparent, crystalline substrate composed of a material having a refractive index greater than 2.2, the substrate extending in a plane and having a thickness in a direction perpendicular to the plane that varies along a first direction in the plane and along a second direction in the plane substantially perpendicular to the second direction, as set forth in claim 33.
As described below, Singh et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however does not specifically show a transparent, crystalline substrate composed of a material having a refractive index greater than 2.2, the substrate extending in a plane and having a thickness in a direction perpendicular to the plane that varies along a first direction in the plane and along a second direction in the plane substantially perpendicular to the second direction, as recited in claim 33.
Further, since none of the prior art of record teaches the limitations as recited in claim 33, it is believed that one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention as filed would not consider it obvious to modify Singh et al., with any of the prior art of record, to include recited limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh et al. (US 2022/0128817), taken to be the closest prior art, shows
A head mounted display, comprising:
a head mounted display frame (see Fig. 2);
a first eyepiece supported by the frame (see para. 0607, 0618 and 0638), the first eyepiece comprising a first substrate composed of a crystalline including transparent material (see para. 0607, 0618 and 0638), the first eyepiece further comprising a first in-coupling element comprising a grating on the first surface (see para. 0006), and a first out-coupling element comprising a grating on the first surface and/or a grating on the second surface (see para. 0310); and
a second eyepiece comprising a second substrate composed of the crystalline having transparent material, a second in-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate, and a second out-coupling element on either surface of the second substrate (see para. 0509, 0729 and 0833).
Singh et al. further shows, an article comprising:
a wafer composed of a crystalline (see para. 0895); and
a plurality of optical elements comprising a grating on the surface of the wafer and spaced apart from each other, each grating corresponding to a portion of the wafer for singulation into a component for an eyepiece for a head mounted display, each portion having the same thickness profile (see para. 0006, 0607, 0618, 0638, 0729 and 0833).
Sing et al. also shows an eyepiece comprising:
a transparent, crystalline substrate composed of a material having a refractive index greater than 1-8 (which is taken to include refractive index greater than 2.2) (see the abstract and para. 0006);
an in-coupling element comprising a grating supported by a first surface of the substrate (see par. 0006, 0607, 0618, 0638, 0729 and 0833); and
an optical element comprising a grating supported by the first surface and/or a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface (see para. 0006).
Luo et al. (US 2021/0033867), shows a HMD having a first and second eyepiece, each eyepiece including optical elements having in-coupling and out-couplings (see the abstract, Figs. 4B-21, and para. 0004-0007 and 0044-0048).
Fan et al. (US 2023/0296845), shows a HMD having a first and second eyepiece, each eyepiece including optical elements having in-coupling and out-couplings (see the abstract, Figs. 1-19, and para. 0045-0054).
Yang et al. (US 2022/0269075), shows a HMD having a first and second eyepiece, each eyepiece including optical elements having in-coupling and out-couplings (see the abstract, Figs. 1-29B, and para. 0079-0088).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights