DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/6/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejection over Kwak, KR 2009-0042978
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, KR 2019-0042978.
Regarding claim 1, Kwak (figure 5) teaches a method comprising:
providing a set of multiple light-emitting elements 20 disposed on a flexible polymer (specification lists polymers the same as in claim 17 so it is a flexible transparent polymer) layer 10, each light-emitting element 20 comprising one or more microLEDs that are arranged to generate and emit output light to propagate out-of- plane relative to a corresponding localized area of the polymer layer 10 surrounding that light-emitting element 20; and
attaching a rigid layer 60 to the polymer layer 10 with the set of light-emitting elements 20 therebetween, the rigid layer 60 and the polymer layer 10 forming a laminated structure that is transparent for visible light, each light-emitting element of the set being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements 20 occupying a sufficiently small fraction of an areal extent of the set, so as to enable visual observation of a scene through the laminated structure along a sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements 20 (abstract).
Kwak fails to state the microLEDs are inorganic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use inorganic microLEDs in the invention of Kwak because they are conventionally known an used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, though Kwak fails to teach providing the set of light-emitting elements includes transferring individually each light-emitting element from a carrier onto the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a carrier in the invention of Kwak because a carrier is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 3, though Kwak fails to teach providing the set of light-emitting elements includes transferring simultaneously groups of multiple light-emitting elements from a carrier onto the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a carrier to transport groups multiple light-emitting elements in the invention of Kwak because this is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 4, though Kwak fails to teach each light-emitting element comprising one or more direct-emitting or phosphor-converted inorganic semiconductor microLEDs, the microLEDs including one or more UV-, visible-, or infrared-emitting microLEDs, each microLED including one or more materials among III-V, Il-VI, or Group IV semiconductor materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these multiple light-emitting elements in the invention of Kwak because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 5, though Kwak fails to teach one or more of the light-emitting elements including corresponding wavelength-converting structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use corresponding wavelength-converting structures in the invention of Kwak because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 6, Kwak (figure 2) teaches forming on the polymer layer 10 multiple electrically conductive traces 22 that are arranged and connected for providing electrical drive current to the light-emitting elements 20 of the set, the traces 22 being sufficiently transparent, sufficiently narrow, or spaced sufficiently far apart so as to enable visual observation of the scene through the laminated structure along the sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements (abstract states without obstructing the viewing range of the driver in front of the vehicle).
In claim 7, Kwak, which states a length from 30x30 um to 100x100 um) teaches each light-emitting element 20 having a largest transverse dimension that is less than 200 pm.
Regarding claim 8, though Kwak fails to teach the light-emitting elements occupying less than 25% of the areal extent of the set, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the areal extent through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 9, though Kwak fails to teach the set of light-emitting elements occupying an area of the laminated structure having a smallest transverse dimension that is greater than 5 mm, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the areal extent through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 10, though Kwak fails to teach applying an adhesive layer between the rigid layer and the polymer layer, the adhesive layer adhering together the rigid layer and the polymer layer and at least partly encapsulating the set of light- emitting elements, the adhesive layer being transparent for visible light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an adhesive layer in the invention of Kwak because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 12, though Kwak fails to teach the rigid layer 60 including one or more areal regions that are curved, or two or more planar areal regions that are not coplanar with respect to one another, wherein attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes deforming or molding the polymer layer to conform to the rigid layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an adhesive layer in the invention of Kwak because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 13, though Kwak fails to teach attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes preventing, avoiding, or eliminating bubbles or voids between the rigid layer and the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to prevent, avoid, or eliminate bubbles or voids in the invention of Kwak because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 14, Kwak teaches the polymer layer 10 remaining flexible after attachment to the rigid layer 60. The material used for the polymer layer is still flexible.
In claim 15, though Kwak fails to teach attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes curing or cross-linking the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cure or cross-link the polymer layer in the invention of Kwak because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, though Kwak fails to teach the polymer layer being rigid after curing or cross- linking, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cure or cross-link in the invention of Kwak because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 17, Kwak teaches, (i) the polymer layer 10 including one or more polymeric materials among clear polyimide (PI), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or other flexible or curable transparent polymer, or (ii) the rigid layer including one or more materials among silica, optical glasses, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), or other rigid transparent polymers.
As to claim 18, Kwak teaches each light-emitting element being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements of the set being spaced sufficiently far apart, so that, with the light-emitting elements in an off state or emitting only non-visible light, the set does not substantially interfere with visual observation of the scene through or reflected by the substrate by a naked eye of a human observer along the sight line that passes through the set. The abstract states the transparent display apparatus does not disturb a field of view of a driver in front of the vehicle while being displayed in the same field of view to provide information to a user.
Rejection over Mori et al., US 2021/0183943
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Mori et al., US 2021/0183943.
In re claim 1, Mori (figures 2-3) teaches a method comprising:
providing a set of multiple light-emitting elements 20 disposed on a flexible (paragraph 0067) polymer (paragraph 0047 teaches acrylic resins) layer 10, each light-emitting element 20 comprising one or more inorganic (paragraph 0072) microLEDs that are arranged to generate and emit output light to propagate out-of- plane relative to a corresponding localized area of the polymer layer 10 surrounding that light-emitting element 20 (paragraph 0003); and
attaching a rigid layer 14 to the polymer layer 10 with the set of light-emitting elements 20 therebetween, the rigid (paragraph 0059) layer 14 and the polymer layer 10 forming a laminated structure that is transparent for visible light, each light-emitting element of the set being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements occupying a sufficiently small fraction of an areal extent of the set, so as to enable visual observation of a scene through the laminated structure along a sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements (paragraphs 0003 & 0066).
In claim 4, Mori (paragraph 0072) teaches each light-emitting element comprising one or more direct-emitting or phosphor-converted inorganic semiconductor microLEDs, the microLEDs including one or more UV-, visible-, or infrared-emitting microLEDs, each microLED including one or more materials among III-V, Il-VI, or Group IV semiconductor materials.
Regarding claim 5, Mori (paragraph 0069 wherein a phosphor is a wavelength-converting structure) teaches one or more of the light-emitting elements including corresponding wavelength-converting structures.
With respect to claim 6, Mori (figures 2-3: 41/44/414/423/424) teaches forming on the polymer layer multiple electrically conductive traces that are arranged and connected for providing electrical drive current to the light-emitting elements of the set, the traces being sufficiently transparent, sufficiently narrow, or spaced sufficiently far apart so as to enable visual observation of the scene through the laminated structure along the sight line that passes through the set of light-emitting elements.
As to claim 7, Mori (paragraph 0064) teaches each light-emitting element having a largest transverse dimension that is less than 200 pm.
In re claim 8, Mori (paragraph 0080) teaches the light-emitting elements occupying less than 25% of the areal extent of the set.
With respect to claim 14, Mori (paragraph 0067) teaches the polymer layer remaining flexible after attachment to the rigid layer.
Concerning claim 17, Mori (paragraphs 0047 & 0059) teaches (i) the polymer layer including one or more polymeric materials among clear polyimide (PI), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or other flexible or curable transparent polymer, or (ii) the rigid layer including one or more materials among silica, optical glasses, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), or other rigid transparent polymers.
Pertaining to claim 18, Mori (paragraphs 0064-0066) teaches each light-emitting element being sufficiently small in at least one transverse dimension, and the light-emitting elements of the set being spaced sufficiently far apart, so that, with the light-emitting elements in an off state or emitting only non-visible light, the set does not substantially interfere with visual observation of the scene through or reflected by the substrate by a naked eye of a human observer along the sight line that passes through the set.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al., US 2021/0183943, as applied to claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 2, though Mori, which teaches growing, or transferring using microtransfer printing or other methods (paragraph 0071), fails to explicitly teach providing the set of light-emitting elements includes transferring individually each light-emitting element from a carrier onto the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a carrier in the invention of Mori because a carrier is a conventionally known method of supplying light-emitting elements. The use of conventional methods to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 3, though Mori, which teaches growing, or transferring using microtransfer printing or other methods (paragraph 0071), fails to explicitly teach providing the set of light-emitting elements includes transferring simultaneously groups of multiple light-emitting elements from a carrier onto the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a carrier in the invention of Mori because a carrier is a conventionally known method of supplying light-emitting elements. The use of conventional methods to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 9, though Mori may fail to explicitly teach the set of light-emitting elements occupying an area of the laminated structure having a smallest transverse dimension that is greater than 5 mm, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the smallest transverse dimension through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Pertaining to claim 10, though Mori fails to teach applying an adhesive layer between the rigid layer and the polymer layer, the adhesive layer adhering together the rigid layer and the polymer layer and at least partly encapsulating the set of light- emitting elements, the adhesive layer being transparent for visible light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the an adhesive layer in the invention of Mori because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 12, though Mori fails to teach the rigid layer including one or more areal regions that are curved, or two or more planar areal regions that are not coplanar with respect to one another, wherein attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes deforming or molding the polymer layer to conform to the rigid layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Mori it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 13, though Mori fails to teach attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes preventing, avoiding, or eliminating bubbles or voids between the rigid layer and the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Mori it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 15, though Mori fails to teach attaching the rigid layer to the polymer layer includes curing or cross-linking the polymer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use curing or cross-linking in the invention of Mori it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 16, though Mori fails to teach the polymer layer being rigid after curing or cross- linking curing or cross-linking, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use curing or cross-linking to make rigid in the invention of Mori it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 11/19/25