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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 08/19/2025 and 09/23/2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection pertains to the foreign references KR 10-2456595B1 and KR 10-20220013193A .
Response to Amendment
An Amendments filed on 09/23/2025 responding to the Office Action mailed on 06/20/2025, has been acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final Rejection is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-9 of the remarks filed on 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that dependent claims 4-16 are patentable over Kwak and Wildeson. This argument is fully considered but not persuasive as Kwak and Wildeson teach certain limitations of the above claims as elaborated below and therefore are relied upon for the rejection of these dependent claims. Therefore, a new ground of rejection in view of newly found prior art reference in combination with Kwak and Wildeson has been made for the pertinent dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasylyev (US 20170254518 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vasylyev discloses a light source comprising:
a substrate 20 that is reflective for visible light so as to enable visualization of a scene reflected by the substrate and obstruct visualization of another scene through the substrate (see Fig. 1: 20, paragraph 0045, 0052).
Note: A surface of the substrate 20 is formed of metal with high specular reflectance and therefore will inherently enable visualization of a scene reflected by the substrate and obstruct visualization of another scene through the substrate (see paragraph 0052). The substrate 20 in an embodiment is metal with a mirror like finish (paragraph 0052). Thus, it will inherently block light from passing through. Light passing through the metal substrate is blocked and the metal substrate reflects light to the observe to a scene reflected off the substrate.
and a set of multiple light-emitting elements 2 positioned on or within the substrate 20 (Fig. 1: 2, 20, paragraphs 0045),
each light-emitting element 2 comprising one or more inorganic microLEDs that are arranged to generate and emit visible output light to propagate out-of-plane relative to a corresponding localized area of the substrate around that light- emitting element 2 (Fig. 1: 2, paragraphs 0068, 0069),
each light-emitting element 2 of the set being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension (see paragraph 0046),
Note that according to paragraph 0046, the size of each light-emitting element 2 is on the scale of 1 µm, which is less than 200 µm as required by the present disclosure (see paragraph 0031 of originally filed disclosure), and
the light-emitting elements 2 occupying a sufficiently small fraction of an areal extent of the set so as to enable visual observation of the scene reflected by the substrate along a sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements (see paragraph 0046, 0108).
Note that according to paragraph 0108, the spacing between light-emitting elements 2 is at least 5 times greater than the size of the light-emitting elements 2, and therefore would occupy a sufficiently small fraction of an areal extent of the set inherently enabling visual observation of the scene reflected by the substrate 20 along a sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements 2.
An exemplary calculation can be performed for the light source 900 shown in Fig. 7. The fill factor FF of the light-emitting elements 2 arranged in the exemplary 8 × 4 rectangular grid shown in fig. 7 can be calculated using:
F
F
=
32
a
2
4
a
+
3
b
(
8
a
+
7
b
)
× 100
a – size of the light-emitting elements in one transverse direction; 1 µm < a < 300 µm (paragraph 0046)
b – spacing between light-emitting elements; b > 5a (paragraph 0108)
For a minimum value of b=5a, the fill factor can be calculated to be FF= 3.9 %, which is sufficiently small and is within the range of <25% disclosed in the present disclosure (paragraph 0031 of the originally filed disclosure). Also note that FF further decreases as b increases, i.e., if b > 5a.
Furthermore, note that the structure of the light source of Vasylyev is substantially identical to the claimed invention and therefore would yield all the above claimed properties. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, multiple electrically conductive traces 90 on or within the substrate 20 that are arranged and connected for providing electrical drive current to the light-emitting elements 2 of the set, the traces 90 being sufficiently transparent, sufficiently narrow, or spaced sufficiently far apart so as to enable visual observation of the scene reflected by the substrate 20 along the sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements 2 and the set of electrically conductive traces 90 (see Fig. 7: 90, 2, 20, paragraph 0136, 0138).
Note that in Fig. 7 of Vasylyev, the conductive traces are sufficiently narrow and are sufficiently spaced apart and are made of transparent material (see paragraph 0138), and therefore would not block the reflective substrate 20 inherently enabling visual observation of the scene reflected by the substrate 20 along the sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements 2 and the set of electrically conductive traces 90.
Regarding Claim 8, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 of the set including only a single microLED (paragraph 0068).
Regarding Claim 10, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, the light-emitting elements 2 occupying less than 25% of the areal extent of the set (see calculations shown under rejection of Claim 1, and paragraph 0046, 0108).
Regarding Claim 12, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, the substrate 20 being flexible (see Fig. 1: 20, paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 14, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements 2 of the set being spaced sufficiently far apart, so that, with the light-emitting elements 2 in an off state, the set does not substantially interfere with visual observation of the scene through or reflected by the substrate 20 by a naked eye of a human observer along the sight line that passes through the set (see Fig. 7: 2, 20, paragraph 0046, 0108).
Note that the structure of the light source of Vasylyev is substantially identical to the claimed invention and therefore would yield the above claimed property. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 15, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements 2 of the set being spaced sufficiently far apart, so that to a naked eye of a human observer the set is only negligibly visible with the light-emitting elements 2 in an off-state (see Fig. 7: 2, 20, paragraph 0046, 0108).
Note that the structure of the light source of Vasylyev is substantially identical to the claimed invention and therefore would yield the above claimed property. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 16, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1,each light-emitting element 2 being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements 2 of the set being spaced sufficiently far apart, so that to a naked eye of a human observer the set resembles dust on the substrate 20 with the light-emitting elements 2 in an off state (see Fig. 7: 2, 20, paragraph 0046, 0108).
Note that the structure of the light source of Vasylyev is substantially identical to the claimed invention and therefore would yield the above claimed property. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 20, Vasylyev teaches a method comprising,
with a substrate 20 positioned in a sight line along which a scene is observed reflected by the substrate 20 by an observer (Fig. 1: 20, Fig. 7: 20, paragraph 0045, 0052),
Note that a surface of the substrate 20 is formed of metal with high specular reflectance and therefore the substrate 20 when positioned in a sight line along which a scene is observed, the scene will be inherently reflected by the substrate 20 as observed by an observer (see paragraph 0052).
operating a set of multiple light-emitting elements 2 positioned on or within the substrate 20 to emit visible output light (blue, green, red) (Fig. 1: 2, 20, paragraphs 0045),
the substrate 20 being reflective for visible light so as to enable visualization of the scene reflected by the substrate and obstruct visualization of another scene through the substrate 20 (see paragraph 0052),
Note that a surface of the substrate 20 is formed of metal with high specular reflectance and therefore will inherently enable visualization of a scene reflected by the substrate and obstruct visualization of another scene through the substrate (see paragraph 0052). The substrate 20 in an embodiment is metal with a mirror like finish (paragraph 0052). Thus, it will inherently block light from passing through. Light passing through the metal substrate is blocked and the metal substrate reflects light to the observe to a scene reflected off the substrate.
each light-emitting element 2 comprising one or more inorganic microLEDs that are arranged to generate and emit visible output light to propagate out-of-plane relative to a corresponding localized area of the substrate around that light- emitting element 2 (Fig. 1: 2, paragraphs 0068, 0069),
and each light-emitting element 2 of the set being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension (see paragraph 0046),
Note that according to paragraph 0046, the size of each light-emitting element 2 is on the scale of 1 µm, which is less than 200 µm as required by the present disclosure (see paragraph 0031 of originally filed disclosure),
and the light-emitting elements 2 occupying a sufficiently small fraction of an areal extent of the set, so as to enable visual observation of the scene reflected by the substrate along a sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements (see calculations shown under the rejection of Claim 1, paragraph 0046, 0108).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev (US 20170254518 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Kwak (KR 20190042978 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Kwak fails to teach the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 of the set being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other light- emitting element 2 of the set.
However, Kwak teaches a light source, each light-emitting element 20 of the set being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other light- emitting element 20 of the set (Fig. 2, paragraph 0048 in English Translation of Kwak).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vasylyev and Kwak in order to have each light-emitting element of the set being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other light- emitting element of the set. Doing so would enable selective illumination of the light-emitting element facilitating dynamic lighting patterns.
Regarding Claim 5, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 of the set including multiple microLEDs (red, blue, green, paragraph 0069), but fails to teach each microLED of a given light-emitting element 2 being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other microLED of that light-emitting element.
However, Kwak teaches a light source, each microLED of a given light-emitting element 20 being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other microLED of that light-emitting element (Fig. 2, paragraph 0048 in English Translation of Kwak).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vasylyev and Kwak in order to have each microLED of a given light-emitting element being arranged and connected so as to be operable independently of at least one other microLED of that light-emitting element. Doing so would enable selective illumination of the light-emitting element facilitating dynamic lighting patterns.
Claims 7 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev (US 20170254518 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Wildeson et al. (US 20190198709 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, the microLEDs comprising UV- or visible- emitting, direct-emitting or phosphor-converted, semiconductor microLEDs (paragraphs 0037, 0069), but fails to explicitly teach the microLEDs including one or more materials among III-V, Il-VI, or Group IV semiconductor materials.
However, Wildeson et al. teaches a light source comprising microLEDs including one or more materials among III-V, Il-VI, or Group IV semiconductor materials (paragraph 0042, 0043).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Vasylyev with the teaching of Wildeson et al. in order to have the microLEDs to include one or more materials among III-V, Il-VI, or Group IV semiconductor materials. Doing so would enable the fabrication of microLEDs capable of emitting various wavelengths of light, as recognized by Wildeson et al. (paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 13, Vasylyev fails to explicitly teach the light source of claim 1, the substrate being rigid.
However, Wildeson et al. teaches a light source comprising a substrate 106, the substrate being rigid (See Fig 1J: 106, paragraph 0038).
Note that the substrate 106 is made of sapphire, which is a rigid material (see paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vasylyev with the teaching of Wildeson et al. in order to have the substrate be rigid. Doing would provide support to the light-emitting elements, as recognized by Wildeson et al. (see paragraph 0038).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev (US 20170254518 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, each light-emitting element 2 having a largest transverse dimension that is less than 30 µm and greater than 100 µm (paragraph 0013 in English Translation of Kwak).
While Vasylyev fails to explicitly teach a range of less than 200 µm, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a largest transverse dimension that is less than 200 µm.
Regarding Claim 11 Vasylyev teaches the light source of claim 1, the set of light-emitting elements 2 occupying an area of the substrate having a smallest transverse dimension that is greater than 100 mm (paragraph 0109).
While Vasylyev fails to explicitly teach a range of greater than 5 mm, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a smallest transverse dimension that is greater than 5 mm.
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 11/03/2025
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 November 24, 2025