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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) presented have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection ---wherein the new grounds of rejection are based on the amendment and argument by the applicant stating that the prior arts of record fail to disclose “the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector.”
The Office agrees that prior art fail to explicitly disclose the argued limitations, however in view of the rejection hereinafter the claimed invention/limitation is/are made obvious.
It should be noted that although the Office acknowledges that the prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose the limitation “the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector,” the Office finds the argument that because Bhat teaches that the broadband photodetector of the device should be able to detect different wavelength ranges that are emitted by different LEDs in order to determine different biological characteristics (Bhat, paragraphs 8 and 46), thus, a skilled person following the teaching of Bhat finds no suggestion to replace the broadband photodiode with a resonant-cavity photodetector, as required by amended claims 1 and 15. The Applicant concluded the argument by stating that in fact, replacing the broadband photodetector of Bhat with a narrowband resonant-cavity photodetector would lead to a device with reduced functionality and would render the device of Bhat unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. These arguments are found to be non-persuasive.
In paragraph 46 of Bhat, Bhat discloses that “…Each pixel 11 also includes a broadband photodiode 14 or other type of photodetector.” It should be noted that the mere fact that Bhat teaches “other type of photodetector,” a person having ordinary skills in the art with knowledge of other photodetector and their capabilities, would find it at least obvious to try other types of photodetectors other than the broadband photodiode disclose by Bhat.
In the same paragraph, Bhat further discloses that “… In another embodiment, the device 10 is only intended for a particular function, such as detecting blood flow in a finger, and the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band of wavelengths for the particular function, such as red or IR.” In view of such teaching by Bhat, a person having ordinary skills in the art will at least find it obvious to implement a narrowband photodetector -i.e., when only red or IR LEDs are implemented in the device.
At least in view of these teachings, a person having ordinary skills in the art will find it at least obvious to explore or be motivated to use other types of photodetectors in device of Bhat
Furthermore, it should be noted that even if replacing the broadband photodetector of Bhat with a narrowband resonant-cavity photodetector would lead to a device with reduced functionality and would render the device of Bhat unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, that does not mean such replacement is not an obvious replacement in the art. It have been held that, some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Before proceeding with the rejection of the claims, the Office word liked to acknowledge a typographical error in the Office Action of 11/28/2025. In the Office Action, it was stated that claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. [US PGPUB 20170337413] (hereinafter Bhat). However, in the rejection of the claims, Cok et al [US PGPUB 20190265478] was also relied upon. Despite the error in not disclosing the Cok reference in the header of the rejection of the claims, Cok, which was is of record due to the Office Action of 06/223/2025 as correctly relied upon to reject the deficiencies of Bhat.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. [US PGPUB 20170337413] in view of Pacal [US PGPUB 20180329035] and in view of Herschbach et al. [US PGPUB 20210020795] (hereinafter Bhat, Pacala, and Herschbach).
Regarding claim 1, Bhat teaches a display comprising
- a display substrate (24, Fig. 2);
- a plurality of pixels (11, Para 46);
- a plurality of light emitting display subpixels (regions of component 12, Fig. 2), each light emitting display subpixel comprising a micro light-emitting diode, micro-LED (12, Para 46), and being configured to emit light for forming a portion of a display image (Para 46, Fig. 2);
- a plurality of light capturing subpixels (regions of component 14, Para 46, Fig. 2), each light capturing subpixel comprising a photodiode (Para 46) and being configured to receive light that is emitted by at least a portion of the light emitting display subpixels and returned via reflection (Para 56/58, Fig. 2), wherein
- the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels are arranged on a surface of the display substrate (Fig. 2);
- the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels form the pixels that are distributed across an active display area of the display substrate (Fig. 2); and
- at least a portion of the pixels comprises a light capturing subpixel and at least one light emitting display subpixel (Fig. 2).
Bhat does not specifically disclose that the photodiode is a micro photodiode, and
the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector.
Regarding the limitation that the photodiodes being micro photodiode, it should be noted that the invention of Bhat is related to the use of micro-components (Para 46/80/81). Moreover, the photodiodes 12 have similar structure to that of the photodiode 14, thus it is reasonable to find it obvious that he photodiode 14 are also micro-components. Furthermore, it is noted in another embodiment of Bhat invention (Fig. 10), photodiode 14 are used, wherein the photodiode 14 overlaps with micro-lens 66 (Para 94), thus it is reasonable to also conclude or find it obvious to have the photodiode be a micro photodiode.
In view of such teaching by Bhat, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photodiode be a micro photodiode at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Referring the limitation “the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector,” it should be noted that Bhat further teaches “…In another embodiment, the device 10 is only intended for a particular function, such as detecting blood flow in a finger, and the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band of wavelengths for the particular function, such as red or IR. Each pixel 11 also includes a broadband photodiode 14 or other type of photodetector” (Para 46). At least in view of Bhat’s teaching of “the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band…red or IR” and “…other types photodetector,” a person having ordinary skills in the art will find it at least obvious to explore or be motivated to use other types of photodetectors instead of the specifically mentioned broadband photodiode.
Referring to the invention of Pacala, Pacala teaches an optical imager system 1000 that includes a light detection system (1001), and the optical imager system having a wide field-of-view and capable of narrowband imaging (Para 119), and
exemplary photodetectors 216 that could be used in light detection system 200 similar to system 1001 to include a resonant cavity photodiode among others.
In view of such teaching by Pacala, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to invention of Bhat comprise the teachings of Pacala in order to improve the field-of-view of the device or at least based on the rationale of relying on some teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Moreover, referring to the invention of Herschbach, Herschbach teaches in detecting infrared rays, a resonant cavity photodiode can be used.
In view of such further teaching by Herschbach, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Bhat implement a resonant cavity photodiode at least when the “the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band…red or IR” (Bhat. Para 46),” in order to effectively address dark current levels and noise levels in the device (Herschbach, Para 4).
Regarding claim 2, Bhat teaches a display wherein the pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array within the active display area (Fig. 1, Para 21).
Regarding claim 3, Bhat teaches a display wherein the plurality of light emitting display subpixels comprise infrared emitting display subpixels, wherein each infrared emitting display subpixel comprises an infrared emitter such as an infrared micro-LED or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, VCSEL (Para 46).
Regarding claim 14, Bhat teaches a display wherein a footprint of the micro-LEDs amounts to 75% of the footprint of the micro photodiodes (Fig. 2; in view of 4 micro-LEDs 12 and 1 photodiode 14).
Bhat does not specifically disclose wherein the footprint amounts to 80% to 120%.
However, the footprint disclosed by Bhat 75%, is at least close to the lower end of the claimed footprint. Thus, a prima facie case of obvious exist –it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
It should be noted that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding claim 15, Bhat teaches a method for manufacturing a display, the method comprising
- providing a display substrate (24, Fig. 2);
- forming light emitting display subpixels (regions of component 12, Fig. 2) by arranging a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes, micro-LEDs (12, Para 46), on a surface of the display substrate (Fig. 2); and
- forming light capturing subpixels (regions of component 14, Para 46, Fig. 2) by arranging a plurality of photodiodes (Para 46) on the surface of the display substrate (Fig. 2); wherein
- the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels form pixels that are distributed across an active display area of the display substrate (Fig. 2); and
- at least a portion of the pixels comprises a light capturing subpixel and at least one light emitting display subpixel (Fig. 2).
Bhat does not specifically disclose that the photodiode is a micro photodiode; and
the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector.
Regarding the limitation that the photodiodes being micro photodiode, it should be noted that the invention of Bhat is related to the use of micro-components (Para 46/80/81). Moreover, the photodiodes 12 have similar structure to that of the photodiode 14, thus it is reasonable to find it obvious that he photodiode 14 are also micro-components. Furthermore, it is noted in another embodiment of Bhat invention (Fig. 10), photodiode 14 are used, wherein the photodiode 14 overlaps with micro-lens 66 (Para 94), thus it is reasonable to also conclude or find it obvious to have the photodiode be a micro photodiode.
In view of such teaching by Bhat, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photodiode be a micro photodiode at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Referring the limitation “the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector,” it should be noted that Bhat further teaches “…In another embodiment, the device 10 is only intended for a particular function, such as detecting blood flow in a finger, and the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band of wavelengths for the particular function, such as red or IR. Each pixel 11 also includes a broadband photodiode 14 or other type of photodetector” (Para 46). At least in view of Bhat’s teaching of “the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band…red or IR” and “…other types photodetector,” a person having ordinary skills in the art will find it at least obvious to explore or be motivated to use other types of photodetectors instead of the specifically mentioned broadband photodiode.
Referring to the invention of Pacala, Pacala teaches an optical imager system 1000 that includes a light detection system (1001), and the optical imager system having a wide field-of-view and capable of narrowband imaging (Para 119), and
exemplary photodetectors 216 that could be used in light detection system 200 similar to system 1001 to include a resonant cavity photodiode among others.
In view of such teaching by Pacala, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to invention of Bhat comprise the teachings of Pacala in order to improve the field-of-view of the device or at least based on the rationale of relying on some teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Moreover, referring to the invention of Herschbach, Herschbach teaches in detecting infrared rays, a resonant cavity photodiode can be used.
In view of such further teaching by Herschbach, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Bhat implement a resonant cavity photodiode at least when the “the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band…red or IR” (Bhat. Para 46),” in order to effectively address dark current levels and noise levels in the device (Herschbach, Para 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacal and Herschbach, and further in view of Fuhrmann et al. [US PGPUB 20180198021] (hereinafter Fuhrmann).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display wherein the micro-LEDs comprise an LED base layer and an emission layer arranged on the LED base layer.
Referring to the invention of Fuhrmann, Fuhrmann teaches an exemplary structure of a infrared LED 10 (Fig. 37, Para 304) comprising an LED base layer (36, Para 304) and an emission layer (21, Para 309) arranged on the LED base layer (Fig. 37).
In view of such teaching by Fuhrmann, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have micro-LED disclose by Bhat have a structure as disclosed by Fuhrmann at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacal and Herschbach, and further in view of Doshida et al. [US PGPUB 20100032552] (hereinafter Doshida).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display wherein the micro photodiodes comprise an absorption layer and electrical contacts arranged on the absorption layer.
Referring to the invention of Doshida, Doshida teaches an exemplary structure of a infrared photodetector (Fig. 13B) comprise an absorption layer (36, Para 73) and electrical contacts (26 and 38, Para 73) arranged on the absorption layer (Fig. 13B).
In view of such teaching by Doshida, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have photodiode disclose by Bhat have a structure as disclosed by Doshida at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacal and Herschbach, and further in view of Deligianni [US Patent 12201425].
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Bhat teaches a display wherein the display substrate is a polymer substrate (Para 57).
The combined invention does not specifically disclose that the display substrate is a flexible substrate, in particular a polyimide substrate.
Referring to the invention of Deligianni, Deligianni teaches forming a biosensor having a display substrate that is flexible substrate, and in particular a polyimide substrate (Col. 7, lines 13-19).
In view of such teaching by Deligianni, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate of Bhat comprise the teachings of Deligianni at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacal and Herschbach, and further in view of Tharumalingam et al. [US PGPUB 20160307957] (hereinafter Tharumalingam).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display further comprising aperture structures arranged above at least a portion of the light emitting display subpixels and of the light capturing subpixels on an emission side of the display.
Referring the invention of Tharumalingam, Tharumalingam teaches an optoelectronic device comprising aperture structures arranged above at least a portion of the light emitting region (region where light source 316 are formed, Para 37, Fig. 5) and of the light capturing region (region where detector 306 are formed, Para 37, Fig. 5) on an emission side of the display (Fig. 5)
In view of such teaching by Tharumalingam, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined invention comprise the teachings of Tharumalingam to improve the sensitivity of the device (Para 37).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display further comprising lens structures arranged above at least a portion of the light emitting display subpixels and of the light capturing subpixels on an emission side of the display.
Referring the invention of Tharumalingam, Tharumalingam teaches an optoelectronic device comprising lens structures (826, Para 67) arranged above at least a portion of the light emitting region (region where light source 316 are formed, Para 37, Fig. 5) and of the light capturing region (region where detector 306 are formed, Para 37, Fig. 5) on an emission side of the display (Fig. 5)
In view of such teaching by Tharumalingam, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined invention comprise the teachings of Tharumalingam to improve the sensitivity of the device (Para 67).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat i in view of Pacal and Herschbach, and further in view of Liu et al. [US PGPUB 20200185581] (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display wherein the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels are configured to be driven by a transceiver element, in particular by a single transceiver element.
Referring the invention of Liu, Liu teaches an optoelectronic device wherein light emitting display component 301 and light capturing component 302 are configured to be driven by a transceiver element 20, in particular by a single transceiver element (Para 46, Fig. 1L).
In view of such teaching by Liu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined invention comprise the teachings of Liu to reduce clustering in the device and/or forming a more compact device.
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The combined invention does not specifically disclose a display wherein wherein the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels are configured to be driven in a synchronized manner.
Referring the invention of Liu, Liu teaches an optoelectronic device wherein light emitting display component 301 and light capturing component 302 are configured to be driven by a transceiver element 20(Para 46, Fig. 1L), and wherein the light emitting display component 301 and light capturing component 302 are configured to be driven in a synchronized manner (i.e., the light emitting display component 301 emits a wavelength and light capturing component 302 receives the emitted wavelength).
In view of such teaching by Liu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined invention comprise the teachings of Liu to reduce interference and/or lost signal due to the components being out of sync.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacala and Herschbach, and further in view of Park et al. [US PGPUB 20200335659] (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Bhat teaches the limitations of claim 15 upon which it depends.
The combine invention does not specifically disclose a method wherein
- forming the light emitting display subpixels comprises
- forming the plurality of micro-LEDs on a donor substrate; and
- transferring the plurality of micro-LEDs from the donor substrate to the surface of the display substrate via mass transfer; and
- forming the light capturing subpixels comprises
- forming the plurality of micro photodiodes on a further donor substrate; and
- transferring the plurality of micro photodiodes from the further donor substrate to the surface of the display substrate via mass transfer.
Referring to the invention of Park, Park teaches forming different color of micro-LEDs on respective substrate (Para 76, he plurality of red, green, and blue LEDs of each of the growth substrates 20a, 20b, and 20c), then the micro-LEDs are transferred to a temporary substrate 25 (Para 76), thus forming a pattern RRGGBBRRGGBB (Fig. 6-8), and then the micro-LEDs pattern is transferred to a relay substrate 30 via mass transfer (Fig. 8, Para 119). It is noted that in other embodiments, Park teaches various micro-LED pattern could be formed on the relay substrate and then the pattern is deposited of a target substrate via mass transfer (Fig. 18A/22A/24A).
In view of such teaching by Park, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combined invention comprise the mass transfer process taught by Park at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143.I.B), wherein such a process eases manufacturing process time and improve product quality.
It is noted that that Park does not specifically disclose - forming the light capturing subpixels comprises
- forming the plurality of micro photodiodes on a further donor substrate; and
- transferring the plurality of micro photodiodes from the further donor substrate to the surface of the display substrate via mass transfer.
However, in view of Park’s teaching of forming a desired display pattern on a relay substrate and then transferring the pattern to a target substrate, it seems that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art to provide the micro photodiode in Bhat’s invention in a similar manner.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. [US PGPUB 20190235677] in view of Bhat, Pacala, and Herschbach.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a display comprising
- a display substrate (200, Fig. 1A);
- a plurality of pixels (each region of group of component 31s/32, Fig. 1A);
- a plurality of light emitting display subpixels (each region of component 31s, Fig. 1A), each light emitting display subpixel comprising a micro light-emitting diode, micro-LED (31, Para 20), and being configured to emit light for forming a portion of a display image (Fig. 1A);
- a plurality of light capturing subpixels (regions of component 32, Para 20, Fig. 1A), each light capturing subpixel comprising a photodiode (32, Para 20) and being configured to receive light that is emitted by at least a portion of the light emitting display subpixels and returned via reflection (Para 20, Fig. 1A), wherein
- the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels are arranged on a surface of the display substrate (Fig. 1A);
- the plurality of light emitting display subpixels and the plurality of light capturing subpixels form the pixels that are distributed across an active display area of the display substrate (Fig. 1A); and
- at least a portion of the pixels comprises a light capturing subpixel and at least one light emitting display subpixel (Fig. 1A).
Liu does not specifically disclose that the photodiode is a micro photodiode; and
the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector.
However, as noted in the invention of Liu is related to the use of micro-components (Para 5).
In view of such teaching by Liu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photodiode be a micro photodiode at least based on the rationale relying on teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the Bhat prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Referring the limitation “the plurality of light capturing subpixels comprise infrared capturing display subpixels, wherein each infrared capturing subpixel comprises a resonant-cavity photodetector,” it is noted that Liu disclose that “photodiode” refers to a photoelectric sensor that converts light into electrical signals (Para 17), wherein a person having ordinary skills in the art will expect all types of photodiodes/photoelectric sensors to converts light into electrical signals. Thus, a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it at least obvious to explore or be motivated to find photodetectors that would be compatible with Liu’s invention or incorporated in Liu’s invention to achieve other types of imaging device with other characteristic from that of Liu.
Referring to the invention of Bhat, Bhat teaches an imaging device comprising RGB & IR pixels with a photodetector (Fig. 4), and wherein the photodetector is a broadband photodiode (Para 46). Bhat further discloses that in other embodiments, the device is only intended for a particular function, such as detecting blood flow in a finger, and the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band of wavelengths for the particular function, such as red or IR.”
At least in view of Bhat’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device of Liu incorporating only IR or red LEDs at least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element/structure with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B), such as lower optical scattering, thus improving imaging quality.
Referring to the invention of Pacala, Pacala teaches an optical imager system 1000 that includes a light detection system (1001), and the optical imager system having a wide field-of-view and capable of narrowband imaging (Para 119), and
exemplary photodetectors 216 that could be used in light detection system 200 similar to system 1001 to include a resonant cavity photodiode among others.
In view of such teaching by Pacala, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to invention of Liu comprise the teachings of Pacala in order to improve the field-of-view of the device or at least based on the rationale of relying on some teachings, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. (MPEP 2143.I.G).
Moreover, referring to the invention of Herschbach, Herschbach teaches in detecting infrared rays, a resonant cavity photodiode can be used.
In view of such further teaching by Herschbach, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Liu implement a resonant cavity photodiode at least when the “the LEDs 12 only emit a single narrow band…red or IR” (Bhat. Para 46),” in order to effectively address dark current levels and noise levels in the device (Herschbach, Para 4).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches a display wherein the pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array within the active display area (Fig. 1, Para 21).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches a display wherein the micro-LEDs comprise an LED base layer (314, Para 21, Fig. 6) and an emission layer (316, Para 40) arranged on the LED base layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches a display further comprising a further display substrate (100, Para 24) that is substantially parallel to the display substrate and arranged on a side, in particular an emission side, of the display (Fig. 1A).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Pacal and Herschbach and further in view of Jung et al. [US PGPUB 20210020795] (hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Bhat discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention of Bhat does not specifically disclose a display wherein a footprint of the micro-LEDs and of the micro photodiodes is smaller than 100 µm².
Referring to the invention of Jung, Jung discloses a device comprising the use of light-emitting diode 200 (Para 66) and photodiode 300 (Para 69); and wherein the light-emitting diode and the photodiode are micro-component having width, length, and thickness of greater than or equal to about 0.1 μm and less than about 100 μm, for example each width, length, and thickness of about 0.1 μm to about 80 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 70 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 60 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 50 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 40 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 30 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 20 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 10 μm, or about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm (Para 47).
It should be noted that at the dimension of about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm, the footprint of the micro photodiode and microLED would be smaller than 0.1 mm2. Thus, in view of such dimension as taught by Jung (about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before to have the footprint of the micro photodiode and microLED in the invention of Bhat with a footprint smaller than 0.1 mm2 at least based on the rationale of applying known technique/structure to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.D), and thus result in a more compact device.
It should be noted that although other dimensions taught Jung do not have a footprint falling entirely smaller than 0.1 mm2, the other dimensions overlap with the claimed footprint or have a footprint close to the claimed footprint.
It should be noted that it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” and/or a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, it should be noted that it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,” (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
small to the extent of smaller than 0.1mm2 in order to have a more compact device.
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Bhat discloses the limitation of claim 1 upon which it depends.
The modified invention of Bhat does not specifically disclose a display wherein a footprint of the micro-LEDs and of the micro photodiodes is smaller than 0.1 mm².
Referring to the invention of Jung, Jung discloses a device comprising the use of light-emitting diode 200 (Para 66) and photodiode 300 (Para 69); and wherein the light-emitting diode and the photodiode are micro-component having width, length, and thickness of greater than or equal to about 0.1 μm and less than about 100 μm, for example each width, length, and thickness of about 0.1 μm to about 80 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 70 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 60 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 50 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 40 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 30 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 20 μm, about 0.1 μm to about 10 μm, or about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm (Para 47).
It should be noted that at the dimension of about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm, the footprint of the micro photodiode and microLED would be smaller than 0.1 mm2. Thus, in view of such dimension as taught by Jung (about 0.1 μm to about 5 μm), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before to have the footprint of the micro photodiode and microLED in the invention of Bhat with a footprint smaller than 0.1 mm2 at least based on the rationale of applying known technique/structure to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.D), and thus result in a more compact device.
It should be noted that although other dimensions taught Jung do not have a footprint falling entirely smaller than 0.1 mm2, the other dimensions overlap with the claimed footprint or have a footprint close to the claimed footprint.
It should be noted that it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” and/or a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, it should be noted that it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,” (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
small to the extent of smaller than 0.1mm2 in order to have a more compact device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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 Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812