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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/12/2026.
Amendments to claims 8 and 13, filed 3/12/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the prior objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim 8 are both withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 8-11 of the Remarks, filed 3/12/2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully 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 pgs. 13-15 of the Remarks, filed 3/12/2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 3/12/2026, not the Non-Final Rejection, filed 11/12/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220181397 A1, hereinafter “Choi”) in view of Metz et al (US 20230403906 A1, hereinafter “Metz”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a system (mobile device 102, see FIG. 1(B,C)) comprising (see FIGs. 4-5, illustrating (emissive) display 200 – which, per ¶ 68, is “suitable for use with the mobile device of FIG. 1[B,C]” – and ¶s 68-72):
a screen ((emissive) display 200) comprising one or more layers; and
an optical receiver (camera 502) embedded within or behind the screen (display 200);
wherein the optical receiver (camera 502) is configured to receive beams (light 300) at certain locations within the screen (display 200); and
wherein at least one of the one or more layers (i.e. with TFT structure 240 and (control) signal lines 242) is configured to adjust or affect diffractive characteristics of beams (light 300) received by the optical receiver (camera 502) (Note the following:
in FIG. 5 and ¶s 70-73, Choi describes gaps between signal lines 242 and/or TFT structure 240, diffracting incident light 300 as it reaches the underlying camera 502
in ¶ 82 also, Choi states more generally that “As mentioned, the circuit elements may form gaps (i.e., slits) that can diffract the light, and constraining the circuit elements (e.g., control signal lines) into bundled smaller regions (e.g., to create openings in the through-transmissive region) can enhance the diffraction”).
Choi, in the embodiment cited above, does not explicitly disclose
a plurality of optical source assemblies embedded within or behind the screen;
wherein the plurality of optical source assemblies are configured to emit beams at certain locations within the screen; and
adjusting or affecting diffractive characteristics of beams emitted by the plurality of optical source assemblies.
(as the above embodiment more specifically addresses the diffraction of (externally incident) light 300 propagating towards an underlying camera 502.)
However, it is noted that Choi does generally reserve their teachings (including diffraction considerations) not only for cameras/sensors, but for light sources as well. Examiner also notes that such generalization would necessarily involve:
an optical source embedded within or behind the screen;
wherein the optical source is configured to emit beams at certain locations within the screen; and
adjusting or affecting diffractive characteristics of beams emitted by the optical source.
following mere replacement of the optical receiver for an optical source, and light received for light emitted (see ¶ 94: “while blocking diffracted light from reaching a camera [...] has been described, the disclosed principles and techniques may be applied to other applications [...] the disclosed principles and techniques may be applied to a light source rather than a light sensor”).
Choi and Metz commonly relate to OLED display devices employing diffractive optics.
Metz explicitly discloses (see FIGs. 1 and 2C, ¶s 198-211 and 244-246 detailing a display device 1 with a depth mapping apparatus) the plurality of optical source assemblies (illumination source 5) (see also ¶s 30-31 “The illumination source [5, shown in FIG. 1] may comprise at least one laser projector”, “In case a plurality of illumination sources is used […]”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extend Choi’s teachings not only to light received by optical sensors/cameras, but to light emitted by optical sources as well, in order to enable other light-/image-/pattern-projection functionalities (e.g. for depth mapping).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Choi with Metz by using multiple optical/ illumination sources, in order to provide depth measurement with greater accuracy through multiple reference points.
(Examiner’s note: As established above, Choi’s disclosure applies equally to both light sensors as well as light sources, and to the opposing/time-reversed optical trajectories with which they are respectively associated. Thus, for the remainder of this action, it is to be understood that Choi’s teachings regarding light received by their light sensor or camera shall equally apply to any claim limitations involving light emitted by the optical source)
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein one or more characteristics (i.e. arrangement of signal lines 242) of the screen (display 200) are set or modified to produce optical properties based on preset criteria relating to diffractive performance.
(See ¶s 70-72 regarding arrangement of circuit elements, such as pixels 237 and control/signal lines 242, and their effect on diffraction of light propagating through device 200.See also FIGs. 7(A,B) and ¶s 75-81 where signal lines ((714, 718), (734, 738)) are routed between pixels (712, 732) and sub-pixels (716(A,B,C), 736(A,B,C)) which are arranged in a regular geometric patterns.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 2.
Choi further discloses wherein the one or more characteristics (i.e. arrangement of signal lines 242) comprise one or more of pixel density, size, thickness, refractive index, and arrangement. (See ¶ 72 regarding gaps formed between signal lines 242: “In general, narrower gaps in the display result in larger diffraction angles. Accordingly, higher resolution displays may have more pronounced diffraction (i.e., larger diffraction angles) because the density of the control lines 242 in these displays is higher.” Thus, the number and arrangement of signal lines directly correspond to screen resolution, which in turn is a function of pixel density, size, and arrangement.)
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1
Choi further discloses wherein the screen (display 200) comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) based screen (¶ 68: “the display 200 can be an AMOLED display”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1
Choi further discloses wherein the one or more layers comprise a thin-film-transistor (TFT) layer (i.e. with TFT structure 240 and signal lines 242). (See FIG. 4 and ¶ 69. See also See also ¶ 93 where “TFT layer” is used as more general terminology)
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 5.
Choi further discloses wherein the thin-film transistor (TFT) layer (i.e. with TFT structure 240 and signal lines 242; see FIG. 4 and ¶ 69) is configured to multiply emitter count on a projected area. (See ¶ 72 regarding gaps formed between signal lines 242: “In general, narrower gaps in the display result in larger diffraction angles. Accordingly, higher resolution displays may have more pronounced diffraction (i.e., larger diffraction angles) because the density of the control lines 242 in these displays is higher.” Thus the number and arrangement of signal lines directly corresponds to screen resolution, and hence the number of (sub)pixels or light-emitting elements – i.e. emitter count – directed/projected to a given area on the screen.)
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the one or more layers comprise an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) layer (cathode layer 230 with OLED emitter stacks 235 and anode layers 235 – together forming pixels 237 of (AMOLED) display 200). (See FIG. 4 and ¶ 69.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 7.
Choi further discloses wherein the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) layer (cathode layer 230 with OLED emitter stacks 235 and anode layer 235) is configured to multiply emitter count, to adjust emitter shape, and/or to adjust properties of an emitter. (As noted above with regards to claim 7, cathode layer 230 with OLED emitter stacks 235 and anode layer 235 together form pixels 237 of (AMOLED) display 200; see FIG. 4 and ¶ 69. The components are thus configured according to the desired number and arrangement of (sub)pixels – i.e. the number and/or shape of the emitters.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the one or more layers comprise a sensory layer (touch sensor layer 220). (See FIG. 4 and ¶ 69.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the one or more layers comprise a top protective layer (cover glass layer 210). (See FIG. 4 and ¶ 69.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the at least one of the one or more layers (i.e. with TFT structure 240 and signal lines 242) is physically patterned or arranged to adjust or affect diffractive characteristics of beams (light 300) emitted by the optical source (See Examiner’s note following claim 1 addressed above.). (See ¶s 70-72 regarding arrangement of circuit elements, such as pixels 237 and control/signal lines 242, and their effect on diffraction of light propagating through device 200.See also FIGs. 7(A,B) and ¶s 75-81 where signal lines ((714, 718), (734, 738)) are routed between pixels (712, 732) and sub-pixels (716(A,B,C), 736(A,B,C)) which are arranged in a regular geometric patterns.)
Metz further discloses the plurality of optical source assemblies (see ¶s 30-31 “The illumination source [5, shown in FIG. 1] may comprise at least one laser projector.” “In case a plurality of illumination sources is used […]”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Metz, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of You et al (CN 103792745 A, hereinafter “You”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Choi discloses the system of claim 11.
Modified Choi does not disclose wherein the physical patterning or arranging comprise use of one or more cutout portions within the at least one of the one or more layers.
Choi and You commonly relate to flat panel displays with TFT structures/circuitry.
You discloses wherein the physical patterning or arranging comprise use of one or more cutout portions within the at least one of the one or more layers. (See ¶s 68-80; first and second metal layers M1 and M2 – together forming gate lines 120, data lines 130, and thin-film transistor 140 – are formed using photolithography processes which employ patterning masks (i.e. “cutout portions”), and which will also generally involve some etching steps (i.e. the removal or the “cutting out” of portions of undesired materials).)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Choi and You by photolithographically forming TFT and accompanying structures, in order to produce precise and reproducible features.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US 20160197452 A1) in view of Metz et al (US 20230403906 A1, hereinafter “Metz”).
Regarding claim 13, Mor discloses (see FIGs. 1-2A, ¶s 38-42) an optical source assembly (optical projection module 30) comprising:
an optoelectronic component (VCSEL emitters 24 of (optoelectronic) device 20) configured to emit beams (see FIG. 2A) ; and
a beam shaping component (lens 46 with diffractive optical element (DOE) 44) configured to shape beams emitted by the optoelectronic component (device 20);
wherein the beam shaping component (lens 46 with DOE 44) is disposed directly within a transmission path from the optoelectronic component (device 20), and
wherein the optoelectronic component (VCSEL emitters 24) comprises a plurality of sub-elements (VCSEL emitters 24).
Mor does not disclose:
wherein the optical source assembly is configured for use in a screen and is embedded at a particular location within or behind the screen;
wherein the plurality of sub-elements are configured for emitting light beams at a plurality of different wavelengths.
Mor and Metz commonly relate to light projectors for depth mapping apparatuses.
Metz discloses (see FIGs. 1 and 2C, ¶s 198-211 and 244-246):
wherein the optical source assembly (illumination source 5) is configured for use in a screen (translucent display 2) and is embedded at a particular location (positions 16) within or behind the screen (translucent display 2);
wherein the plurality of sub-elements (“light sources”) are configured for emitting light beams at a plurality of different wavelengths (see also ¶ 27: “The illumination source may comprise a plurality of light sources”, “light emitted by the illumination source may have a wavelength of 300 to 1100 nm, especially 500 to 1100 nm. Additionally or alternatively, light in the infrared spectral range may be used, such as in the range of 780 nm to 3.0 μm”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mor and Metz, in order to implement depth mapping in display applications using multiwavelength channels (useful for resolving different materials that interact with light in a wavelength-dependent manner).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mor discloses the optical source assembly of claim 13.
Metz also discloses the further comprising a housing or packaging configured to enclose all remaining components of the optical source assembly (illumination source 5). (See ¶ 30: “The illumination source may be integrated into a housing of the display device”)
Regarding claim 15, modified Mor discloses the optical source assembly of claim 13.
Mor also discloses (see ¶ 38, FIG. 1) the further comprising a substrate (VCSEL/semiconductor die 22).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mor discloses the optical source assembly of claim 15.
Mor also discloses (see ¶ 38, FIG. 1) wherein the optoelectronic component (VCSEL emitters 24) is embedded onto the substrate (VCSEL/semiconductor die 22).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mor discloses the optical source assembly of claim 13.
Mor also discloses (see ¶ 42, FIG. 2A) wherein the beam shaping component (lens 46 with DOE 44) comprises a lens based component (lens 46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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 Allen can be reached at (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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights