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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2026 is being considered by the
examiner.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 01/21/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 10/28/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully
consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On pages 1-3 of the remarks filed on 01/21/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claims 1, and 15, Applicant argues that the pixels or pixel patches of Blum are surrounded by transparent space in the air gap and thus the pixels or pixel patches of Blum are not disposed on a surface of a substrate such as claimed, and therefore, Blum fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest "a sparse array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed on a surface of the transparent flexible substrate, " as recited by amended independent claims. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The airgap of Blum is disposed only between the micro lens array and the lower surface of the LED patches and the transparent spaces exist only between adjacent LED patches and thus, the LED patches of Blum are still disposed on the surface of the flexible substrate in the orientation of Fig. 16A of Blum (that is the upper portion of the substrate indexed as the faceted sparsely populated transparent near eye display in Fig. 16A). Fig. 15B and Figs. 16B-16D of Blum clearly establishes this fact by showing a side view of the optical module in different embodiments. As can be seen, the air gap exists only between the micro lens array and the lower surface of the display which comprises the patches. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1 and 15 is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On pages 3-4 of the remarks filed on 01/21/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claims 18, and 15, Applicant argues that the pixels or pixel patches of Blum are surrounded by transparent space in the air gap and thus the pixels or pixel patches of Blum are not disposed on a surface of a substrate such as claimed, and therefore, Blum fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest "a sparse array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed on a surface of the transparent flexible substrate, " as recited by the amended claim 18. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. As mentioned earlier, the airgap of Blum is disposed only between the micro lens array and the lower surface of the LED patches and the transparent spaces exist only between adjacent LED patches and thus, the LED patches of Blum are still disposed on the surface of the flexible substrate in the orientation of Fig. 16A of Blum (that is the upper portion of the substrate marked as the faceted sparsely populated transparent near eye display in Fig. 16A). Fig. 15B and Figs. 16B-16D of Blum clearly establishes this fact by showing a side view of the optical module in different embodiments. As can be seen, the air gap exists only between the micro lens array and the lower surface of the display which comprises the patches. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 18 is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
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, 4-9, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Blum et al. teaches a light source, comprising:
a transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 21, lines 52-54, column 21, lines 43-51, column 54, lines 16-18);
a sparse array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed on a surface of the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 33, lines 59-62);
and a rigid substrate adhered to the transparent flexible substrate such that the sparse array of LEDs is located between the rigid substrate and the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 25, lines 4-11).
Note that the spectacle lens of Fig. 16A serves as the rigid substrate.
Regarding Claim 4, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is substantially transparent (see annotated Fig. 16A).
Note that the rigid substrate in Fig 16A is a spectacle lens which is inherently substantially transparent.
Regarding Claim 5, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the sparse array of LEDs has a light- emitting area that is less than or equal to 5% of a surface area of the sparse array (column 26, lines 35-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
1401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 16A of Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2)
Regarding Claim 6, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim wherein the sparse array of LEDs has a light- emitting area that is less than or equal to 1% of a surface area of the sparse array (column 54, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, further comprising transparent electrical traces configured to electrically power the LEDs of the sparse array of LEDs (column 33, lines 59-62).
Regarding Claim 8, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the sparse array of LEDs includes two or more LEDs that emit light at a same wavelength(column 54, line 8).
Note that the sparse array of LEDs makeup a full color display (column 54, line 8), which will inherently include two or more LEDs corresponding to each pixel/subpixel that emit light at a same wavelength.
Regarding Claim 9, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the sparse array of LEDs includes two or more LEDs that emit light at different wavelengths (column 54, line 8).
Note that in one embodiment, the sparse array of LEDs makeup a full-color display (column 54, line 8), which will inherently include two or more LEDs that emit light at different wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 12, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is curved (the spectacle lens serving as the rigid substrate of Fig. 16A is curved).
Regarding Claim 13, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is a single unitary element (see Fig. 16A).
Note that in Fig 16A, only a single spectacle lens is shown.
Regarding Claim 15, Blum et al. teaches a method for fabricating a light source, the method comprising:
providing a transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 21, lines 52-54, column 21, lines 43-51, column 54, lines 16-18);
disposing a sparse array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) on a surface of the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 33, lines 59-62);
and adhering a rigid substrate to the transparent flexible substrate such that the sparse array of LEDs is located between the rigid substrate and the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 25, lines 4-11).
Note that the spectacle lens of Fig. 16A serves as the rigid substrate.
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 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Hu (US 20240047628 A1) and Fang et al. (CN 106675505 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is adhered to the transparent flexible substrate with a material layer (see Fig. 16A, column 25, lines 36-38, column 36, 13-15), but fails to explicitly teach the material layer is an adhesive layer and the sparse array of LEDs being encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer.
However, Hu teaches a light source, wherein the rigid substrate 15 is adhered to the transparent flexible substrate 12 with a material layer 14, the sparse array of LEDs 13 being encapsulated in the material layer 14(Fig. 2: 12, 13, 14, 15, paragraph 0061, 0063, 0069). Hu further teaches the material layer 14 is formed of silica gel (paragraph 0062). While Hu fails to explicitly teach silica gel is an adhesive material, Fang et al. teaches silica gel can be formulated in a manner to function as both encapsulant and adhesive material for LEDs (see abstract and Claim 1 in English Translation of Fang et al.).
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 Blum et al. with the teachings of Hu and Fang et al. in order to have the rigid substrate of Blum et al. adhered to the transparent flexible substrate of Blum et al. with the adhesive layer of Hu/Fang et al. such that the sparse array of LEDs are being encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer. By doing so, both bonding of the substrates together and encapsulation of the LEDs can be achieved using a single material layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 1, wherein: the rigid substrate is substantially transparent (the spectacle lens of Fig. 16A is inherently substantially transparent).
The combination of Blum et al., Hu and Fang et al. fails to explicitly teach the adhesive has a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive.
However, in a different embodiment, Blum et al. teaches an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive has a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive (column 39, lines 16-27).
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 different embodiments of Blum et al. in order to have the adhesive have a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive. Doing so would minimize diffraction effects, as recognized by Blum et al. (column 39, lines 21-23).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Han (US 20140085913 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Blum et al. fails to explicitly teach the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is specularly reflective.
However, Han teaches a light source, wherein the rigid substrate 100 is specularly reflective (fig. 2: 100, paragraph 0019).
Note that the rigid substrate 100 is a rearview mirror of a vehicle which is inherently specularly reflective.
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 Blum et al. and Han in order to have the rigid substrate be specularly reflective . Doing so would improve the versatility of the light source enabling it to be used in reflective surfaces such as rearview mirrors of vehicles.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, Blum et al. fails to explicitly teach the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate is substantially flat.
However, in a different embodiment, Blum et al. teaches wherein the rigid substrate is substantially flat (see Fig 35A, column 47, lines 39-46).
Note that in Fig. 35A, the flexible light source is adhered onto a flat flexible substrate.
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 different embodiments of Blum et al. in order to have the rigid substrate substantially flat. Doing so would improve the versatility of the light source enabling them to be adhered onto flat surfaces.
Regarding Claim 14, Blum et al. fails to explicitly teach the light source of claim 1, wherein the rigid substrate includes multiple rigid substrate elements.
However, in a different embodiment, Blum et al. teaches wherein the rigid substrate includes multiple rigid substrate elements (see Fig. 18B).
Note that the light source is attached to both spectacle lenses of the eyewear glass, each of the lens can be treated as rigid substrate elements.
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 different embodiments of Blum et al. in order to have the rigid substrate include multiple rigid substrate elements. Doing so would improve the versatility of the light source enabling them to be adhered onto multiple substrates such as tiled displays and foldable displays.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2), as applied to Claim 15 above, in view of Hu (US 20240047628 A1) and Fang et al. (CN 106675505 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Blum et al. teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the rigid substrate is adhered to the transparent flexible substrate with a material layer (see Fig. 16A, column 25, lines 36-38, column 36, 13-15), but fails to explicitly teach the material layer is an adhesive layer and the sparse array of LEDs being encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer.
However, Hu teaches a method for fabricating a light source, wherein the rigid substrate 15 is adhered to the transparent flexible substrate 12 with a material layer 14, the sparse array of LEDs 13 being encapsulated in the material layer 14 (Fig. 2: 12, 13, 14, 15, paragraph 0061, 0063, 0069). Hu further teaches the material layer 14 is formed of silica gel (paragraph 0062). While Hu fails to explicitly teach silica gel is an adhesive material, Fang et al. teaches silica gel can be formulated in a manner to function as both encapsulant and adhesive material for LEDs (see abstract and Claim 1 in English Translation of Fang et al.).
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 Blum et al. with the teachings of Hu and Fang et al. in order to have the rigid substrate of Blum et al. adhered to the transparent flexible substrate of Blum et al. with the adhesive layer of Hu/Fang et al. such that the sparse array of LEDs are being encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer. By doing so, both bonding of the substrates together and encapsulation of the LEDs can be achieved using a single material layer.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Blum et al., Hu and Fang et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein the adhesive has a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive.
However, in a different embodiment, Blum et al. teaches an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive has a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive (column 39, lines 16-27).
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 different embodiments of Blum et al. in order to have the adhesive have a refractive index that is between a refractive index of the transparent flexible substrate and a refractive index of the rigid substrate, inclusive. Doing so would minimize diffraction effects, as recognized by Blum et al. (column 39, lines 21-23).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 10634912 B2), in view of Hu (US 20240047628 A1) and Fang et al. (CN 106675505 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Blum et al. teaches a light source, comprising:
a transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 21, lines 52-54, column 21, lines 43-51, column 54, lines 16-18);
a sparse array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed on a surface of the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 33, lines 59-62),
the sparse array of LEDs having a light-emitting area that is less than or equal to 10% of a surface area of the sparse array (column 26, 35-44);
and a rigid substrate adhered with a material layer to the transparent flexible substrate (see annotated Fig. 16A, column 34, lines 5-20, column 25, lines 4-11).
Note that the spectacle lens of Fig. 16A serves as the rigid substrate.
Blum et al. fails to teach the material layer is an adhesive layer, and such that the sparse array of LEDs is encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer.
However, Hu teaches a light source, wherein the rigid substrate 15 is adhered with a material layer 14 to the transparent flexible substrate 12 such that sparse array of LEDs 13 is encapsulated in the material layer 14 (Fig. 2: 12, 13, 14, 15, paragraph 0061, 0063, 0069). Hu further teaches the material layer 14 is formed of silica gel (paragraph 0062). While Hu fails to explicitly teach silica gel is an adhesive material, Fang et al. teaches silica gel can be formulated in a manner to function as both encapsulant and adhesive material for LEDs (see abstract and Claim 1 in English Translation of Fang et al.).
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 Blum et al. with the teachings of Hu and Fang et al. in order to have the rigid substrate of Blum et al. adhered with the adhesive layer Hu/Fang et al. to the transparent flexible substrate of Blum et al. such that the sparse array of LEDs is encapsulated in an adhesive of the adhesive layer. By doing so, both bonding of the substrates together and encapsulation of the LEDs can be achieved using a single material layer.
Regarding Claim 19, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 18, wherein the sparse array of LEDs includes two or more LEDs that emit light at a same wavelength (column 54, line 8).
Note that the sparse array of LEDs makeup a full color display (column 54, line 8), which will inherently include two or more LEDs corresponding to each pixel/subpixel that emit light at a same wavelength.
Regarding Claim 20, Blum et al. teaches the light source of claim 18, wherein the sparse array of LEDs includes two or more LEDs that emit light at different wavelengths (column 54, line 8).
Note that in one embodiment, the sparse array of LEDs makeup a full-color display (column 54, line 8), which will inherently include two or more LEDs that emit light at different wavelengths.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 04/09/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights