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 .
Claim status
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 23-25, 27-29 and 33-35 are pending; claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18-22, 26 and 30-32 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in page 1-2 that Trisnadi does not disclose or suggest a first emissive surface that is configured to emit a first color light, and a second emissive surface that is configured to emit two or more colors of light, as recited in claim 17.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Trisnadi clearly taught in fig. 11A and Para 0204, wherein the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c may be may each be full-color displays configured to output light of all component colors. For example, the micro displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c each include red, green, and blue light emitters, so the first emissive surface configured to emit a first color, a second color and a third color and a second emissive surface also configured to emit the first color, the second color and the third color, the claim not limited to a first color light only, and that it is enough for the claim language.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Trisnadi does not disclose or suggest a device that renders an image with an emissive surface that differs from one other emissive surface by a viewing angle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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) 17, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi (WO 2020/139752).
Regarding claim 17, Trisnadi teaches a device (fig. 11A) comprising:
an augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), or mixed reality (MR) system (Para 0105, Augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) systems) comprising one or more organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays, wherein the system comprises two or more emissive surfaces (fig. 11a and Para 0202, wherein wearable display system with a light projection system 1010 having multiple emissive micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c. In Para 0205, wherein the micro-displays may comprise an array of light emitters. Examples of light emitters include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and micro-light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs)),
with each of the OLED displays rendering an image based on the provided light of a different color spectrum (fig. 11A and Para 0203, wherein the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c may be monochrome micro-displays, with each monochrome micro-display outputting light of a different component color),
wherein at least two of the emissive surfaces are non-overlapping (fig. 11a, the emissive micro-displays 1030a, 1030b non-overlapping), and
one or more waveguides through which light from the two or more emissive surfaces is combined and configured to be viewable as a full color image by a user (fig. 11A, Paras 0202 and 0206-0207, wherein the light from the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c is combined by an optical combiner 1050 and directed towards an eyepiece 1020, which relays the light to the eye 210 of a user. The eyepiece 1020 may be a waveguide assembly comprising one or more waveguides).
Trisnadi in some embodiments in (Para 0203), hereinafter embodiment 1, wherein the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c may be monochrome micro-displays, with each monochrome micro-display outputting light of a different component color, which is different from wherein a first emissive surface of the two or more emissive surfaces is configured to emit a first color light, and a second emissive surface of the two or more emissive surfaces is configured to emit two or more colors of light, as claimed.
However, Trisnadi in some other embodiments in fig. 11A and Para 0204, hereinafter embodiment 2, wherein the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c may be may each be full-color displays configured to output light of all component colors. For example, the micro displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c each include red, green, and blue light emitters,
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the micro-displays of Trisnadi in embodiment 1 with embodiment 2 wherein each micro-displays be a full-color displays configured to output light of all component colors. For example, each the micro-display includes red, green, and blue light emitters, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 23, Trisnadi teaches the device of claim 17, wherein at least one of the one or more OLED displays comprises an unpatterned mixture of OLEDs and at least one selected from the group consisting of: quantum dots, micro-LEDs, and perovskite LEDs configured to emit red or green light that are disposed over OEDs of the first display and at least one selected from the group consisting of: a micro light emitting device (micro-LED), quantum dot LEDs, perovskite LEDs, or a micro organic light emitting device (micro-OLED) of the first display that is configured to emit blue light (Para 00205, wherein the micro-displays may comprise an array of light emitters. Examples of light emitters include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and micro-light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs)).
Regarding claim 28, Trisnadi teaches a device of claim 17, wherein the device comprises a type selected from a group consisting of: a flat panel display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display less than 3 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (fig. 1 and Para 0105).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi (WO 2020/139752), and further in view of Hack (US 2017/0062531).
Regarding claim 24, Trisnadi teaches the device of claim 17 above, but Trisnadi does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more OLED displays comprises a first layer configured to emit red light to a second layer to emit green light, and wherein the first layer and the second layer have different thicknesses and are stacked on the first display.
However, Hack discloses wherein at least one of the one or more OLED displays comprises a first layer configured to emit red light to a second layer to emit green light, and wherein the first layer and the second layer have different thicknesses and are stacked on the first display, see fig. 3 and Paras 0043-0044.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi by applying the teaching of Hack to include a backplane is an active matrix thin-film transistor (TFT) array backplane for controlling the MEMS shutters 310, unpatterned OLED 307 with color filters 305, 306 or patterned OLED pixels in the front plane and emit red and green lights, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 25, Trisnadi teaches the device of claim 17, wherein at least one of the one or more OLED displays comprise: a first display configured to emit blue light (fig. 11a and para 0203-0204, Trisnadi);
Trisnadi in view of Hack a plurality quantum dots configured to absorb the emitted blue light and output yellow light; and a plurality of filters configured to convert the yellow light into red light and green light (fig. 3 and Paras 0043-0044, Hack).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 27, 29 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi (WO 2020/139752), and further in view of Koudo (US 2018/0286339).
Regarding claim 1, Trisnadi teaches a device (fig. 11A) comprising:
one or more displays wherein the device comprises two or more emissive surfaces (fig. 11a and Para 0202, wherein wearable display system with a light projection system 1010 having multiple emissive micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c),
wherein each of the emissive surfaces comprises one or more organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) (fig. 11A and Para 0205, wherein the micro-displays may comprise an array of light emitters. Examples of light emitters include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and micro-light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs)),
wherein at least two of the emissive surfaces are non-overlapping (fig. 11a, the emissive micro-displays 1030a, 1030b non-overlapping), and
wherein each emissive surface comprises OLEDs that emit two or less colors (fig. 11A and paras 0203-0204, wherein the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c may be monochrome micro-displays, with each monochrome micro-display outputting light of a different component color), and
wherein the display is configured to display a full color image that is a combination of light from the two or more emissive surfaces using a waveguide (fig. 11A, Paras 0202 and 0206-0207, wherein the light from the micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c is combined by an optical combiner 1050 and directed towards an eyepiece 1020, which relays the light to the eye 210 of a user. The eyepiece 1020 may be a waveguide assembly comprising one or more waveguides),
wherein at least one emissive surface renders an image that differs from one other emissive surface by at least one selected from the group consisting of: resolution, fill-factor, and transparency (Paras 0116-0118, wherein a light projection system may be configured to project individual full-resolution frames of virtual content by projecting one or more partial-resolution subframes. The subframes may be projected in rapid succession and may be offset from each-other (e.g., by a less than a full pixel pitch along one or more axes on which the subframes are translated). And in fig. 32B and Paras 0326 and 0343, wherein the relatively low-resolution and low fill-factor array 1042 (Figure 32A) emulates a relatively high-resolution and high-fill factor array).
Trisnadi does not expressly disclose wherein each of the emissive surfaces is configured with independent scan and data drivers,
However, Koudo discloses “wherein each of the emissive surfaces is configured with independent scan and data drivers”, see fig. 10 and Para 0067.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi by applying the teaching of Koudo to include a plurality of display panels for displaying images, a plurality of source drivers and a plurality of gate drivers for driving the respective display panels, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the display is a microdisplay (Para 0202, a micro-displays 1030a, 1030b, 1030c, Trisnadi), the display has a resolution that is greater than 1000 dots per inch (DPI) or 1000 pixels per inch (PPI) (Para 0118, Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 5, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the emissive devices comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of: light emitting devices (LEDs), perovskite LEDs, micro-LEDs, micro-OLEDs, and quantum dots (Para 00205, wherein the micro-displays may comprise an array of light emitters. Examples of light emitters include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and micro-light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs), Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 6, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a first emissive surface of the two or more emissive surface is configured to emit blue light, and a second emissive surface of the two or more emissive surfaces are configured to emit green light and red light (fig. 11A and Paras 0203-0204, Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 27, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches a consumer product comprising the device recited in claim 1, wherein the device comprises a type selected from a group consisting of: a flat panel display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display less than 3 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign (fig. 1 and Para 0105, Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 29, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein each of the two or more emissive surfaces are non- overlapping (fig. 11a, the emissive micro-displays 1030a, 1030b non-overlapping, Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 33, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one emissive surface renders the image that differs from the other emissive surface by resolution (Para 0116-0118, Trisnadi).
Regarding claim 34, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one emissive surface renders the image that differs from the other emissive surface by fill-factor (fig. 32B and Paras 0326 and 0343, Trisnadi).
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi (WO 2020/139752), in view of Koudo (US 2018/0286339), and further in view of Hack (US 2017/0062531).
Regarding claim 7, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the first emissive surface configured to emit the blue light (fig. 11a and para 0203-0204, Trisnadi),
Trisnadi in view of Koudo does not expressly disclose wherein the first emissive surface is disposed on a transparent substrate, and wherein the first emissive surface comprises a plurality of planes of emissive materials that are stacked vertically and are configured to emit the blue light.
However, Hack discloses “wherein the first emissive surface is disposed on a transparent substrate, and wherein the first emissive surface comprises a plurality of planes of emissive materials that are stacked vertically and are configured to emit the blue light”, see fig. 3A and Para 0043.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi in view of Koudo by applying the teaching of Hack to include a backplane is an active matrix thin-film transistor (TFT) array backplane for controlling the MEMS shutters 310, unpatterned OLED 307 with color filters 305, 306 or patterned OLED pixels in the front plane and emit blue light, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 8, Trisnadi in view of Koudo and in view of Hack teaches the teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the stacked arrangement of emissive materials comprises at least one microcavity configured to emit the blue light (Para 0051, Hack).
Regarding claim 10, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a first emissive surface of the two or more emissive surface is configured to emit blue light (fig. 11a and para 0203-0204, Trisnadi), and
Trisnadi in view of Koudo does not expressly disclose wherein a second emissive a second emissive surface is configured to emit yellow light, and the display includes color altering media configured to output green light or red light based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: the blue light emitted from the first emissive surface, and the yellow light emitted from the second emissive surface.
However, Hack discloses “wherein a second emissive a second emissive surface is configured to emit yellow light, and the display includes color altering media configured to output green light or red light based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: the blue light emitted from the first emissive surface, and the yellow light emitted from the second emissive surface”, see fig. 3A and Paras 0043-0044.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi in view of Koudo by applying the teaching of Hack to include a backplane is an active matrix thin-film transistor (TFT) array backplane for controlling the MEMS shutters 310, unpatterned OLED 307 with color filters 305, 306 or patterned OLED pixels in the front plane and emit yellow, red and green lights, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the two or more emissive surfaces comprises a plurality of pixels (fig. 11a and Para 02015, Trisnadi), and
Trisnadi in view of Koudo does not expressly disclose the device further comprises: a passive matrix drive system that is configured to drive at least one of the plurality of pixels that is configured to emit blue light; and a first active matrix drive system that is configured to drive one or more of the pixels selected from the group consisting of: one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit yellow light, one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit green light, and one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit red light.
However, Hack discloses “the device further comprises: a passive matrix drive system that is configured to drive at least one of the plurality of pixels that is configured to emit blue light; and a first active matrix drive system that is configured to drive one or more of the pixels selected from the group consisting of: one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit yellow light, one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit green light, and one or more pixels of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit red light”, see fig. 3A, Paras 0043-0044 and 0047.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi in view of Koudo by applying the teaching of Hack to include a low resolution displays, OLEDs which could be driven passive matrix and an active matrix OLED, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 13, Trisnadi in view of Koudo and in view of Hack teaches the device of claim 12, further comprising: a second active matrix drive system that is configured to drive a portion of the plurality of pixels that are configured to emit blue light, wherein the second active matrix drive system drives the portion of the plurality of pixels in a different region than the passive matrix drive system (fig. 3A, Paras 0043-0044 and 0047, Hack).
Regarding claim 15, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the two or more emissive surfaces comprises: a first emissive surface comprising a plurality of pixels configured to emit blue light (fig. 11a and para 0203-0204, Trisnadi);
Trisnadi in view of Koudo and in view of Hack teaches a second emissive surface comprising a plurality of pixels configured to emit at least one selected from the group consisting of: yellow light, green light, and red light; a dichroic filter disposed between the first emissive surface and the second emissive surface configured to pass the at least one selected from the group consisting of: the yellow light, the green light, and red light through the dichroic filter, and configured to reflect the blue light (fig. 3A, Paras 0043-0044 and 0047, Hack).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi (WO 2020/139752), in view of Koudo (US 2018/0286339), and further in view of Premutico (US 2014/0139458).
Regarding claim 35, Trisnadi in view of Koudo teaches the device of claim 1, but, Trisnadi in view of Koudo does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one emissive surface renders the image that differs from the other emissive surface by transparency.
However, Premutico discloses “wherein the at least one emissive surface renders the image that differs from the other emissive surface by transparency”, see Para 0101.
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified a device of Trisnadi in view of Koudo by applying the teaching of Premutico to include two displays not have similar or identical transparent sub-region configurations. For example, the two displays may be roughly aligned, and then repositioned as the transparency of the resulting device is measured. When an acceptable, desired, or maximum transparency is obtained, the displays may be connected at the corresponding alignment, as a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrews (US 2019/0074266), relates to solid state light-emitting devices, including electrically accessible light emitting diode (LED) array chips with reduced interaction between emissions of adjacent emitters, devices incorporating one or more LED array chips, and LED displays and illumination apparatuses including such devices, as well as related fabrication methods.
Yang (US 2018/0357952), relates generally to displays, and more particularly to displays for electronic devices. An organic light emitting diode display includes a substrate. The substrate defines a first pixel portion and one or more second pixel portions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAIFELDIN E ELNAFIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, WILLIAM BODDIE can be reached at (571) 272-0666. 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.
/S.E.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2625 3/17/2026
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625