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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on October 6, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 10, 15, 18, has canceled claims 12-14 and has newly added claims 21-23.
Claims 1-11 and 15-23 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The newly added claim 21 recites the phrase “the micro-cavity is configured to increase light extraction efficiency. The specification of originally filed has failed to provide how does the micro-cavity is capable of increasing light extraction efficiency. The specification therefore fails to enable the claim. For the purpose of examination, this feature is being regarded as inherent property of micro-cavity.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 in light of the amendment to claim 1 (base claim) does not seem to further limiting the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Eash et al (US 2022/0099978 A1) in view of US patent application publication by Kim et al (US 2023/0378404 A1) and the patent application publication by Wu et al (US 2008/0285165 A1).
Claim 1 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Eash et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a display system that is comprised of a head-mounted display including a pair of glasses (Figure 2, please see paragraphs [0044] and [0046]), that serves as the wearable eyewear arrangement having a lens assembly wherein the lens assembly comprises a projector including a display panel (LCOS 250) to project display light associated with an image, the projector comprises an illumination system (225) including an illumination source component (LEDs 215A-215C) to generate the display light and a collimation optics (220A-C) serves as the directed wavelength emission component coupled to the illumination source component and a waveguide (270) for propagating the display light to enable viewing of the image by a user, (please see Figure 2, paragraphs [0046] to [0057]).
Eash et al teaches that the illumination source component includes a micro-LED array (210) includes different LEDs (215A to 215C, Figure 2) that each generates different color light, (please see paragraph [0003]) and the collimation optics comprises corresponding collimation elements (220A to 220C) each for directing different color or wavelength of the light. Eash et al further teaches an in-coupler (235, Figure 2) is associated with the collimation optics (220A-C) wherein the in-coupler may be dichroic filters (please see paragraph [0049]) that specifically would selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more filtering characteristics.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “an illumination source component comprising a micro-light emitting diode (LED) having a micro cavity to generate the display light”.
Eash et al teaches that the illumination source component includes a micro-LED array (210) includes different LEDs (215A to 215C, Figure 2) that each generates different color light, (please see paragraph [0003]), but it does not teach explicitly that the micro LED array has a micro-cavity.
Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches a light emitting device that is comprised of a plurality of micro-LEDs (102, Figures 1A to 1D), that each having a micro cavity (106). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim to modify the illumination source component to have a plurality of micro-light emitting diode each with a micro-cavity for the benefit of using art well-known illumination source for producing the image light.
Eash et al teaches that the collimation optics (220A-C) or the in-coupler may be dichroic filters (please see paragraph [0049]), serving as the directed wavelength emission component, that specifically to selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more filtering characteristics. Kim also teaches that the micro-LEDs each is associated with a color conversion element (112a) and a color selector (114) that may include color filters for specifically filter the light passes through the color conversion element and the color selector to generate light having specific wavelength or particular spectrum, (please see paragraphs [0052] to [0054]). This means the filtering would also block the display light of particular wavelength spectrum that is unused.
Claim 1 has also been amended to include the phrase “wherein the directed wavelength emission component is implemented as a multilayer cavity stack that is etched on the micro-cavity”.
Kim teaches that the color selector (114) may comprise a distributed Bragg reflector, (please see paragraph [0052]) which comprises a multilayer cavity stack, (please see paragraph [0056]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the multilayer stack is etched on the micro-cavity. It is noted this feature is considered to product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable weight for it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Furthermore, Wu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches multilayer stack of the filter may manufactured using etching and deposition process, (please see paragraph [0017]), it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known manufacturing process to form the multilayer stack.
With regard to claim 2, Kim teaches a light emitting device comprising the micro-LEDs (102, Figure 1D) each is associated with a Bragg reflector (114, Figure 1D, please see paragraph [0052]) as a color selector for filtering the light generated from the micro-LEDs array.
With regard to claim 3, Eash in light of Kim teaches that the one or more filtering characteristics further includes filtering to propagate the display light of particular wavelength spectrum that is used, (this is implicitly properties of the dichroic filter or color filter).
With regard to claim 4, Eash et al teaches that the illumination source component comprises an array of micro-light emitting diodes, (micro-LEDs, 210, Figure 2, of Eash et al).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Eash et al, Kim and Wu et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US patent issued to Shirota et al (US 2016/0235285 A1).
This display taught by Eash et al in combination with the teachings of Kim and Wu et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Eash et al teaches that the directed wavelength emission component may comprise dichroic filters, (please see paragraph [0049]) for the micro-light emitting diodes (LEDs 215A-215C) that emits red, green and blue light respectively, (please see paragraph [0047]). Shirota et al in the same field of endeavor teaches explicitly a light illumination arrangement that comprises dichroic filters (47, 48 and 49, Figure 1) each associated with a blue LED (B-LED), a green LED (G-LED) or a red LED (R-LED) respectively for reflecting a blue light, a green light or a red light respectively. This means directed wavelength emission components or each of the dichroic filter includes one or more wavelength direction portion.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Shirita et al to explicitly make the directed wavelength emission component includes more than one wavelength direction portions that each is coupled to a micro-light emitting diode of the array to explicitly direct the light from the LEDs to be propagated in the waveguide.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Eash et al in light of Shirota et al teaches that the first wavelength direction portion of a first dichroic filter implements a first filtering characteristics such as reflecting blue light, and the second wavelength direction portion of the second dichroic filter implements a second filtering characteristics such as reflecting green light, (please see paragraphs [0034] to [0037]). With regard to claim 8, the first filtering characteristics and the second filtering characteristics are based on a multiple filtering condition of the waveguide.
With regard to claim 9, Eash et al in light of Shirota et al teaches that the first wavelength direction portion or filter (47, Figure 1) is located on top of the first micro-light emitting diode (B-LED) and the second the wavelength direction portion or filter (48) is located on top of the second micro-light emitting diode (G-LED, please see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 15-17 and newly added claims 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Eash et al (US 2022/0099978 A1) in view of the patent issued to Frankel (PN. 6,096,496) and US patent application publication by Wu et al (US 2008/0285165 A1).
Claim 10 has been significantly amended and claims 21 and 23 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Eash et al teaches, with regard to claim 10, a display panel that serves as the apparatus that is comprised of a projector (please see Figure 2) to project display light associated with an image (generated from the display panel LCOS, 250), the projector includes an illumination source (210) serves as the illumination source component to generate the display light and a colimitation optics (220A to 220C) to serve as directed wavelength emission component coupled to the illumination source component to selectively emit the display light according to one or more emission characteristics such as different colors, (please see paragraph [0003]). The display apparatus further comprises a waveguide (270) for propagating the display light to enable viewing of the image by a user, (please see paragraphs [0046] to [0057]).
Claim 10 has been amended to include the phrase “an illumination source component comprising a micro-light emitting diode LED having a micro-cavity”.
Eash et al teaches that the illumination source component may comprise a micro-LED array (210) includes different LEDs (215A to 215C, Figure 2) that each generates different color light, (please see paragraph [0003]), but it does not teach explicitly that the micro LED array has a micro-cavity.
Frankel in the same field of endeavor teaches an illumination system that is comprised of a plurality of micro light emitting diodes (LEDs 1001a to 1001e, Figure 10, or LEDs, 1101a to 1101f, Figure 11) that each is coupled with a distinct filters (1003a to 1003f or 1103a to 1103f) that each has a specific filtering characteristics for filtering the light generated by the corresponding LED to provide a plurality of light beams that each with a narrow wavelength band, (please see columns 23 and 24). The filtering characteristics may emit the display light of a particular wavelength spectrum that is used and not emitting display light of a particular wavelength spectrum that is unused. Frankel also teaches that a typical light emitting diode may comprise a plurality of micro vertical cavity emitting laser that includes micro-cavity.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Frankel to modify the projector to use art well known vertical cavity emitting laser with micro-cavity as the illumination source.
With regard to the phrase “a directed wavelength emission component coupled to the illumination source component to selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more emission characteristics, including not emitting display light of the particular wavelength spectrum that is unused”, Eash et al teaches that an in-coupler (235, Figure 2) that is associated with the collimation optics (220A-C) wherein the in-coupler may be dichroic filters (please see paragraph [0049]) that specifically would selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more emission characteristics. Frankel et al teaches that each of the micro-light emitting diode may be associated with a directed wavelength emission component that may either comprises a multilayer filter (1103, Figure 11) or Fabry-Perot filter (1003, Figure 10) that each filter distinctly narrow electromagnetic emission spectrum, (please see column 24, lines 5-10) which would specifically and selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more emission characteristics, including not emitting display light of the particular wavelength spectrum that is unused.
Claim 10 has also been amended to include the phrase “wherein the directed wavelength emission component is implemented as a multilayer cavity stack that is etched on the micro-cavity”.
Frankel teaches that the distinct filter (1003 or 1103) may comprise multilayer cavity stack. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the multilayer stack is etched on the micro-cavity. It is noted this feature is considered to product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable weight for it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Furthermore, Wu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches multilayer stack of the filter may manufactured using etching and deposition process, (please see paragraph [0017]), it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known manufacturing process to form the multilayer stack.
With regard to claim 11, Eash et al in light of Frankel teaches that the one or more emission characteristics include emitting the display light of a particular wavelength spectrum or color that is used.
With regard to claims 15-16, it is implicitly true that the multi-cavity Fabry Perot filters taught by Frankel comprise a plurality of cavity layers including a first cavity layer and a second cavity layer. It is either implicitly true or obvious modified by one skilled in the art to make the cavity layer of the first cavity layer be made of a first optical martial and the cavity layer of the second cavity layer be made of a second optical material.
With regard to claim 17, Frankel teaches that the one or more emission characteristics of the filters that may comprise Fabry Perot filters based on a multiple filtering condition of the waveguide.
With regard to newly added claim 21, Frankel teaches the micro-light emitting arrangement has micro-cavity which implicitly would increase the light extraction efficiency.
With regard to newly added claim 23, Frankel teaches that the filters may comprise either Fabry Perot etalon structure or multilayer dielectric stacks which implicitly comprise cavity layers having different refractive index, which known in the art as interference filter, which implicitly create periodic variation of the refractive index to block portion of the wavelength spectrum.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Eash et al (US 2022/0099978 A1) in view of US patent issued to Frankel (PN. 6,096,496) and US patent application publication by Wu et al (US 2008/0285165 A1).
Claim 18 has been ignorantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Eash et al teaches, with regard to claim 18, a display panel that implicitly includes a method for selective emission of wavelength bands in a display system that is comprised of a step of generating display light for projection of a display image by a projector, wherein the display image is generated from the display panel, (LCOS, 250), and a step of implanting a colimitation optics (220A to 220C) to serve as directed wavelength emission component to emit a particular wavelength spectrum (such as different color please see paragraph [0003]) associated with display of the display image, (please see paragraphs [0046] to [0057]).
Claim 18 has been amended to include the phrase “comprising a micro-light emitting diode having a micro-cavity”.
Eash et al teaches that the illumination source component may comprise a micro-LED array (210) includes different LEDs (215A to 215C, Figure 2) that each generates different color light, (please see paragraph [0003]), but it does not teach explicitly that the micro LED array has a micro-cavity.
Frankel in the same field of endeavor teaches an illumination system that is comprised of a plurality of micro light emitting diodes (LEDs 1001a to 1001e, Figure 10, or LEDs, 1101a to 1101f, Figure 11) that each is coupled with a distinct filters (1003a to 1003f or 1103a to 1103f) that each has a specific filtering characteristics for filtering the light generated by the corresponding LED to provide a plurality of light beams that each with a narrow wavelength band, (please see columns 23 and 24). The filtering characteristics may emit the display light of a particular wavelength spectrum that is used and not emitting display light of a particular wavelength spectrum that is unused. Frankel also teaches that a typical light emitting diode may comprise a plurality of micro vertical cavity emitting laser that includes micro-cavity.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Frankel to modify the projector to use art well known vertical cavity emitting laser with micro-cavity as the illumination source.
Claim 18 also includes the phrase “implementing a directed wavelength emission component to selectively emit a particular wavelength spectrum associated with display of the display image, including filtering to block a portion of wavelength spectrum that is unused”.
Eash et al teaches that an in-coupler (235, Figure 2) that is associated with the collimation optics (220A-C) wherein the in-coupler may be dichroic filters (please see paragraph [0049]) that specifically would selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum associated with the display of the display image.
Frankel et al teaches that each of the micro-light emitting diode may be associated with a directed wavelength emission component that may either comprises a multilayer filter (1103, Figure 11) or Fabry-Perot filter (1003, Figure 10) that each filter distinctly narrow electromagnetic emission spectrum, (please see column 24, lines 5-10) which would specifically and selectively emit the display light for a particular wavelength spectrum according to one or more emission characteristics, including not emitting display light of the particular wavelength spectrum that is unused.
Claim 18 has also been amended to include the phrase “wherein the directed wavelength emission component is implemented as a multilayer cavity stack that is etched on the micro-cavity”.
Frankel teaches that the distinct filter (1003 or 1103) may comprise multilayer cavity stack. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the multilayer stack is etched on the micro-cavity.
Furthermore, Wu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches multilayer stack of the filter may manufactured using etching and deposition process, (please see paragraph [0017]), it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known manufacturing process to form the multilayer stack.
With regard to claim 19, Eash et al in light of Frankel et al therefore teaches that implementing the directed wavelength emission component includes filtering to propagate a portion of the wavelength spectrum that is used.
With regard to claim 20, Eash et al in light of Frankel therefore teaches that implementing the directed wavelength emission component selectively not emitting a portion of the wavelength spectrum that may be unused and selectively emitting a portion of the wavelength spectrum that is used.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Eash et al, Frankel and Wu et al as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kim (US 2023/0378404 A1).
Claim 22 has been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The display panel taught by Eash et al in combination with the teachings of Frankel and Wu et al as described in claim 10 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 22, Eash et al in light of Frankel teaches that the light illumination source may comprise a plurality of micro-light emitting diodes but they do not teach explicitly that they are individually addressable. Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches a light emitting device that is comprised of a plurality of individual micro-light emitting diodes (102, please see paragraph [0032]), for providing light control in the pixel and sub-pixel scale. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim to make the plurality of micro-light emitting elements addressable individually for the benefit of providing better control of the illumination properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims and newly added claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejections set forth above. The applicant is respectfully noted that “etching” process is typically known in the art to remove unwanted element. The specification of the instant application fails to teach explicitly how could the multilayer cavity stack is capable be “etched” on the micro cavity.
Conclusion
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872