DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2026 has been entered.
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) 19-23, 25, 28-30, and 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema (US Pub. 20200200964) in view of Pavlopoulos (US Pub. 20100271587).
As per claim 19, Adema teaches (in figure 1A, 2, and 3A) a pair of smart glasses comprising: an optical waveguide plate including: a waveguide substrate (lightguide 112); and a grating layer (input coupler 136 and output coupler 140 both of which are formed as diffraction gratings as either transmission type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 124 or reflection type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 128 as detailed in paragraph 68) disposed on the waveguide substrate to form only a coupled-in region (input zone 160) and a coupled-out region (output zone 164), the coupled-in region being configured to couple light into the waveguide substrate, and the coupled-out region being configured to couple out at least a portion of the light from the waveguide substrate (paragraph 74) and a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate (imaginary line which splits lightguide 112 in half horizontally).
Adema does not teach that a distance between a bottom edge of the coupled-out region and a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate is greater than or equal to 2 mm.
However, Pavlopoulos teaches (in figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 4) forming a coupled-out region (display surface 15) to be located at the upper third or upper fourth of a lens (lens 3) of a pair of smart glasses and that the location of the coupled-out region is a result effective variable in that if the coupled-out region is too high or too low the direct visual field of the eye would be obstructed or a user may not be able to view both the data displayed by the device and real world objects at the same time (see paragraphs 6-11).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), for result effective variables (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the location of the coupled-out region such that a bottom edge of the coupled-out region and a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate is greater than or equal to 2 mm in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user.
As per claim 20, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that the coupled-out region (output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) is in a form of a rectangle or a rounded rectangle (see figure 3A in Adema).
As per claim 21, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that a length of the coupled-out region (length in the horizontal direction of the output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of the coupled-out region (width in the vertical direction of the output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) in a vertical direction (see figure 3A in Adema).
Adema in view of Pavlopoulos does not explicitly teach that the length of the coupled-out region in a horizontal direction is greater than or equal to twice a width of the coupled-out region in the vertical direction.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), for result effective variables (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)),
The length and widths of the coupled-out region are result effective variables in that they determine the size of the eye box and the virtual image and if either the length or the width are too small the user the amount of information presented to the user will be too small and if either of the length and width are too large direct visual field of the eye will be obstructed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the length and width of the coupled-out region such that the length of the coupled-out region in a horizontal direction is greater than or equal to twice a width of the coupled-out region in the vertical direction in order to ensure a suitable image size without obstructing the direct visual field of the user.
As per claim 22, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that a length of the coupled-out region (length in the horizontal direction of the output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of the coupled-out region (width in the vertical direction of the output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) in a vertical direction (see figure 3A in Adema).
Adema in view of Pavlopoulos does not explicitly teach that the length of the coupled-out region is greater than or equal to 3 times the width of the coupled-out region.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), for result effective variables (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)),
The length and widths of the coupled-out region are result effective variables in that they determine the size of the eye box and the virtual image and if either the length or the width are too small the user the amount of information presented to the user will be too small and if either of the length and width are too large direct visual field of the eye will be obstructed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the length and width of the coupled-out region such that the length of the coupled-out region is greater than or equal to 3 times the width of the coupled-out region in order to ensure a suitable image size without obstructing the direct visual field of the user.
As per claim 23, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that no grating is formed on the waveguide substrate (lightguide 112 in Adema) in regions other than the coupled-in region (input zone 160 in Adema) and the coupled-out region (output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) (see figure 3A in Adema).
As per claim 25, Adema teaches a first anti-reflection coating disposed on a surface of the grating layer (last 4 lines of paragraph 67).
As per claim 28, Adema teaches a second anti-reflection coating disposed on a first surface of the waveguide substrate (last 4 lines of paragraph 67).
As per claim 29, Adema teaches a first protective lens (lens 108) disposed on a side away from a wearer and stacked on the grating layer (input coupler 136 and output coupler 140 both of which are formed as diffraction gratings as either transmission type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 124 or reflection type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 128 as detailed in paragraph 68).
Adema does not teach in the cited embodiment a second protective lens disposed on a side close to the wearer and stacked on a second surface of the waveguide substrate.
However, Adema teaches in a later embodiment (shown in figure 6A) providing a second protective lens (second lens 208) disposed on a side close to the wearer and stacked on a second surface of the waveguide substrate in order to achieve a desired eyeglasses prescription (paragraph 81).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second protective lens in the earlier embodiment of Adema.
The motivation would have been to provide multiple surfaces to achieve the desired eyeglasses prescription.
As per claim 30, Adema teaches a third anti-reflection coating disposed on a first surface of the first protective lens (last 4 lines of paragraph 66); and/or a fourth anti-reflection coating disposed on a second surface of the first protective lens; and/or a fifth anti-reflection coating disposed on a first surface of the second protective lens; and/or a sixth anti-reflection coating disposed on a second surface of the second protective lens.
As per claim 32, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that the horizontal bisector (imaginary line which splits lightguide 112 in Adema in half horizontally) of the optical waveguide plate includes one of a horizontal line corresponding to a center point of the optical waveguide plate and a bisector in a horizontal direction.
As per claim 33, Adema teaches (in figure 1A, 2, and 3A) a pair of smart glasses comprising: an optical waveguide plate including: a waveguide substrate (lightguide 112 in Adema); and a grating layer (input coupler 136 and output coupler 140 both of which are formed as diffraction gratings as either transmission type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 124 or reflection type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 128 as detailed in paragraph 68) disposed on the waveguide substrate to form only a coupled-in region (input zone 160) and a coupled-out region (output zone 164), the coupled-in region being configured to couple light into the waveguide substrate, and the coupled-out region being configured to couple out at least a portion of the light from the waveguide substrate(paragraph 74) and a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate (imaginary line which splits lightguide 112 in half horizontally).
Adema does not teach that a center of the coupled-out region is located above the horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate.
However, Pavlopoulos teaches (in figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 4) forming a coupled-out region (display surface 15) to be located at the upper third or upper fourth of a lens (lens 3) of a pair of smart glasses in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user (see paragraphs 6-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the location of the coupled-out region such that a center of the coupled-out region is located above the horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user.
As per claim 34, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that the center of the coupled-out region (center of output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) is a center point of a corresponding shape of the coupled-out region (by definition).
As per claim 35, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that the center of the coupled-out region (center output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos) is a center of a circumscribed circle of the coupled-out region (circle which the center thereof is the center of the output zone 164 in Adema with the location thereof modified as suggested by Pavlopoulos).
As per claim 36, Adema teaches (in figure 1A, 2, and 3A) a pair of smart glasses comprising: an optical waveguide plate including: a waveguide substrate (lightguide 112 in Adema); and a grating layer (input coupler 136 and output coupler 140 both of which are formed as diffraction gratings as either transmission type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 124 or reflection type positioned proximate to and including lightguide surface 128 as detailed in paragraph 68) disposed on the waveguide substrate to form only a coupled-in region and a coupled-out region (output zone 164), the coupled-in region being configured to couple light into the waveguide substrate, and the coupled-out region being configured to couple out at least a portion of the light from the waveguide substrate (paragraph 74).
Adema does not teach that an included angle between a line connecting a center of the coupled-out region and an eye of a user and a line connecting the eye of the user and a projection point of the eye of the user on the optical waveguide plate is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
However, Pavlopoulos teaches (in figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 4) forming a coupled-out region (display surface 15) to be located at the upper third or upper fourth of a lens (lens 3) of a pair of smart glasses such that an included angle (alpha) between a line connecting a center of the coupled-out region and an eye of a user and a line connecting the eye of the user and a projection point of the eye of the user on the lens is greater than or equal to 15 degrees and less than or equal to 25 degrees (paragraph 86) in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user (see paragraphs 6-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the location of the coupled-out region such that an included angle between a line connecting a center of the coupled-out region and an eye of a user and a line connecting the eye of the user and a projection point of the eye of the user on the optical waveguide plate is greater than or equal to 15 degrees and less than or equal to 25 degrees in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user.
As per claim 37, Adema in view of Pavlopoulos teaches that the included angle (alpha in Pavlopoulos) is greater than or equal to 15 degrees and less than or equal to 25 degrees (paragraph 86 in Pavlopoulos).
Adema in view of Pavlopoulos does not explicitly teach that the included is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), for result effective variables (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)).
Pavlopoulos teaches (in figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 4) that the location of the coupled-out region is a result effective variable in that if the coupled-out region is too high or too low the direct visual field of the eye would be obstructed or a user may not be able to view both the data displayed by the device and real world objects at the same time (see paragraphs 6-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the location of the coupled-out region such that the included is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user.
As per claim 38, Adema teaches (in figure 1A, 2, and 3A) an optical waveguide plate comprising: a waveguide substrate (lightguide 112 in Adema); and a grating region (input zone 160 and output zone 164) formed at the waveguide substrate and only consisting of a coupled-in region (input zone 160) and a coupled-out region (output zone 164), the coupled-in region being configured to couple light into the waveguide substrate, and the coupled-out region being configured to couple out at least a portion of the light from the waveguide substrate (paragraph 74) and a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate (imaginary line which splits lightguide 112 in half horizontally).
Adema does not teach that a bottom edge of the coupled-out region is located above a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate; or entirely or partially flush with the horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate.
However, Pavlopoulos teaches (in figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 4) forming a coupled-out region (display surface 15) to be located at the upper third or upper fourth of a lens (lens 3) of a pair of smart glasses in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user (see paragraphs 6-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the location of the coupled-out region such that a bottom edge of the coupled-out region is located above a horizontal bisector of the optical waveguide plate in order to ensure that both data displayed by the device and the real world objected are viewable at the same time without obstructing the direct visual field of the eye of the user.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema (US Pub. 20200200964) and Pavlopoulos (US Pub. 20100271587) as applied to claim 19 above and in further view of Valera (USP 10768348).
As per claim 24, Adema does not teach that the grating layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nanometers to 500 nanometers.
However, Valera teaches (in figures 6 and 7) forming a grating layer (input diffractive optical element 618 and output diffractive optical element 719) having a thickness of between 100 nm and 1000 nm (300 nm and 130 nm see Col. 5 line 61- Col. 6 line7 and Col. 5 lines 42-54) which provides improved flatness for diffraction efficiency over the relevant field of view (Col. 6 lines 30-37 and 62-67).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gratings in Adema to have the structure taught by Valera.
The motivation would have been to improved flatness for diffraction efficiency over the relevant field of view.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema (US Pub. 20200200964) and Pavlopoulos (US Pub. 20100271587) as applied to claim 25 above and in further view of Singh et al. (US Pub. 20180157170, Singh) and Bodiya et al. (US Pub. 20220299711, Bodiya).
As per claim 26, Adema does not teach that the first anti-reflection coating is disposed around the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region, and the first anti- reflection coating does not cover the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region.
However, Singh teaches (in figures 3 and 4) forming a first anti-reflection coating (antireflective features 210 formed in the auxiliary pattern 206) is disposed around the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region (functional pattern 204, see paragraph 55), and the first anti- reflection coating does not cover the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region in order to reduce surface reflection (paragraph 57).
Additionally, Bodiya teaches (in figure 4) that by avoiding forming anti-reflection coating (404) on coupled-in region (212) and coupled-out region (214) the coupled-in region and the coupled-out regions are optimized for their respective functions (paragraph 28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first anti-reflection coating such that it is disposed around the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region, and the first anti- reflection coating does not cover the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region.
The motivation would have been to reduce surface reflection while optimizing the gratings for their respective functions.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema (US Pub. 20200200964) and Pavlopoulos (US Pub. 20100271587) as applied to claim 25 above and in further view of Bodiya et al. (US Pub. 20220299711, Bodiya).
As per claim 27, Adema does not explicitly teach that the first anti-reflection coating covers the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region.
However, Bodiya teaches (in figure 5) forming a reflection coating (404) to cover portions of a coupled-in region (212) and a coupled-out region (214) in order to balance design constraints and image projection quality and efficiency such as display brightness across the eye-box (paragraph 29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Adema to form the first-reflection coating to cover the coupled-in region and the coupled-out region.
The motivation would have been to balance design constraints and image projection quality and efficiency such as display brightness across the eye-box
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema (US Pub. 20200200964) and Pavlopoulos (US Pub. 20100271587) as applied to claim 29 above and in further view of Almanza-Workman et al. (USP 11630325, Almanza-Workman).
As per claim 31, Adema does not teach that the waveguide substrate, the grating layer, the first protective lens, and the second protective lens each include a material with a refractive index less than or equal to 2.
However, Almanza-Workman teaches (in figure 3-4) forming a waveguide substrate (420), a grating layer (surface features see Col. 8 lines 22-28 and Col. 6 line 62 – Col. 7 line 17) and a protective lens (430) to each include materials with a refractive index less than or equal to 2 (Col. 8 lines 37-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the waveguide substrate, the grating layer, the first protective lens, and the second protective lens to each include a material with refractive indices less than or equal to 2 as suggested by Almaza-Workman.
The motivation would have been to ensure that the optical elements are capable of performing their required functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
