DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 11/19/2025, the Applicant elected without traverse Group I (claims 1-19) and withdrew claim 20 of the non-elected Group II in a reply filed on 01/14/2026.
Currently, claims 1-19 are examined as below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/12/2024 and 08/29/2024. The IDS have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, in line 1, “nonzero spacing” should read “a nonzero spacing.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite, because the limitation “the output light” in line 14 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Furthermore, a “pixel output light” and a “illumination output light” are recited earlier in claim 1. It is unclear whether “the output light” in line 14 is one of the pixel output light and the illumination output light, or a different output light from the pixel output light and the illumination output light.
Claim 3 is indefinite, because the limitation “the corresponding output wavelength of at least one other subset” is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is indefinite, because the limitation “the one or more output wavelengths including red, green, amber, and blue wavelengths” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how possible one output wavelength can include multiple wavelengths including red, green, amber, and blue. The limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more output wavelengths including at least one of red, green, amber, and blue wavelengths” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 7 is indefinite, because the limitation “the array” in line 2 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such array could be one of the light-emitting array and the primary optics array as recited in the base claim 1, or a different array.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the array” in lines 2-3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such array could be one of the light-emitting array and the primary optics array as recited in the base claim 1, or a different array.
(2) The term "substantially" in line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because the upper and lower limits associated with the term “substantially” within a claim limitation cannot be clearly determined.
Claim 10 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the metastructured lens of at least one corresponding pixel element” in lines 9-10 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the corresponding metastructures” of the metastructured lens of at least one corresponding pixel element in lines 10-11 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(3) The limitation “the corresponding metastructured lens of at least one other pixel element” in lines 11-12 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the corresponding output wavelength” in lines 8-9 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the output light” in line 9 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such output light is the pixel output light or the illumination output light recited in the base claim 1, or a different output light.
(3) The limitation “the corresponding metastructures” of the metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element of at least one corresponding pixel element in line 13 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(4) The limitation “the corresponding metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element of at least one other pixel element” in lines 13-14 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the array” in line 2 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is also unclear whether such array is the light-emitting array or the primary optics array recited in the base claim 1, or a different array.
(2) The limitation “the array” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such array is the light-emitting array or the primary optics array recited in the base claim 1, or the array recited earlier in claim 12.
Claim 15 is indefinite, because the limitation “the array output light” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Note the dependent claims 2-19 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2020/0135703 A1 to Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”) or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ahmed.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Ahmed in Figs. 2 and 5C teaches a light-emitting device 200, 520 (Figs. 2, 5C, ¶ 26 & ¶ 33, display 200, 520) comprising:
a light-emitting array 532 (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36 an array of subpixels 532 includes subpixels 532G, 532B and 532R) having a plurality of light-emitting pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, subpixels 532 include first subpixel 532G, second subpixel 532B and third subpixel 532R) that each emit corresponding pixel output light at a corresponding one of one or more output wavelengths (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, three different colors of light including green, blue and red), the light-emitting pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R being connected to form multiple distinct subsets 230, 530 (Figs. 2, 5C, ¶ 27 & ¶ 38, pixels 230, 530, and each pixel is a subset of light-emitting pixel elements/subpixels; Fig. 5C, ¶ 33 & ¶ 36 disclose subpixels 532G, 532B and 532R of a pixel 530 are connected through circuitry) with the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R of each subset 530 being operable in unison with one another, the subsets being independently operable (see Note below); and
a primary optics array 540 (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, an array of meta-surfaces 540) having a plurality of metastructured primary optical elements 540G, 540B, 540R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, metal-surfaces 540 include first meta-surface 540G, second meta-surface 540B and third meta-surface 540R) that are each arranged so as to receive and redirect pixel output light from at least one corresponding pixel element 532G, 532B, 532R of the light-emitting array 532 to form a corresponding portion of illumination output light (Fig. 5C & ¶ 37-¶ 38), structural arrangement of corresponding metastructures 540G, 540B, 540R varying among the primary optical elements 540G, 540B, 540R of the primary optics array 540 (Fig. 7 & ¶ 49, the positioning and type of an array of nano-features 748 are chosen for a meta-surface 740 to provide a desired modification to light emitted by an underlying subpixel and the nano-features 748 have different diameters. In other words, meta-surfaces 540G, 540B, 540R have different positionings and types of nano-features (i.e., varying structural arrangement of metastructures), such that a desired modification to light emitted by the respective subpixels 532G, 532B, 532R is provided; ¶ 25, each subpixel has its own angular meta-surface (i.e., varying structural arrangement of corresponding metastructures)),
the illumination output light produced by operation of each subset 530 differs from the output light produced by operation of at least one other subset 530 with respect to wavelength, collimation, propagation direction, or angular radiation distribution (¶ 38, different pixels (i.e., subsets) 530 provide different angles of light).
Note: A limitation of "the light-emitting pixel elements being connected to form multiple distinct subsets with the pixel elements of each subset being operable in unison with one another, the subsets being independently operable" is attempting to define the claimed light-emitting pixel elements and subsets by what they do, rather than by what they are, which can be evidenced by their specific structures or specific compositions. See MPEP § 2173.05(g). The limitation can be construed as a function and/or a property of the claimed light-emitting device.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Here, since Ahmed teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed light-emitting device, the light-emitting device taught by Ahmed is capable of performing the claimed function as recited in the limitation above.
Furthermore, according to Section 2112.III of the MPEP, "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic{,} and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims {underlined for emphasis}."
Here, the limitations do not structurally distinguish the claimed light-emitting pixel elements and subsets over the prior art as is it directed to a function or property of the claimed the light-emitting device. The light-emitting device including inherently has the property or can function as recited in the limitation above.
Regarding claim 4, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, first subpixel 532G, second subpixel 532B and third subpixel 532R) of at least one subset 530 (Fig. 5C & ¶ 38, pixels 530, in which each pixel is a subset of light-emitting pixel elements/subpixels) emitting corresponding pixel output light at multiple different output wavelengths (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, pixel 530 includes subpixels 532G, 532B, 532R emitting three different colors of light including green, blue and red).
Regarding claim 5, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches the one or more output wavelengths including red, green, amber, and blue wavelengths (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, three different colors of light including at least green, blue and red).
Regarding claim 6, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches (i) each pixel element 532G, 532B, 532R including a corresponding semiconductor light-emitting diode (LED) 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 33-¶ 34, subpixels 532G, 532B, 532R are LED devices), with one or more or all of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R being direct LED emitters 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 33-¶ 34, subpixels 532G, 532B, 532R are LED devices, which are direct LED emitters).
Regarding claim 8, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches the primary optics array 540 being spaced apart from emission surfaces of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R of the light-emitting array 532 by either
(i) being positioned at a surface of a transparent primary optics substrate 514 (Fig. 5C & ¶ 35, transparent dielectric layer 514) that is spaced apart from the emission surfaces of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C), or
(ii) being positioned at a surface of a transparent primary optics substrate 514 (Fig. 5C & ¶ 35, transparent dielectric layer 514) that faces away from the emission surfaces of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R, with the substrate 514 positioned directly against the emission surfaces of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 11, Ahmed in Figs. 5C-7 further teaches
(i) each primary optical element 540G, 540B, 540R including a metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element 540G, 540B, 540R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36-¶ 38, meta-surface 540G, 540B, 540R that steer light emitted by subpixels 532), each being characterized by a corresponding steering angle or angular radiative distribution (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36-¶ 38, meta-surface 540G, 540B, 540R modifies and redirect/steer the lights 545 at desired angle(s)),
(ii) metastructures 648 (Figs. 6A-6H & ¶ 41, nano-features 648 of a meta-surface 540) of the beam-steering or beam-shaping elements 540G, 540B, 540R including: multitudes of suitably sized and shaped projections, holes, depressions, inclusions, or structures (see Figs. 6A-6H),
(iii) the metastructures 648 of each metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element 540G, 540B, 540R being arranged relative to the corresponding output wavelength so as to collectively impart on the output light a transverse-position-dependent phase delay (Figs. 5C, 6A-6H & ¶ 41, nano-features 648 comprises a pillar that causes larger phase delays for light with shorter wavelengths) that results in the corresponding steering angle or angular radiative distribution (Figs. 5C, 6A-6H & ¶ 36-¶ 38), and
(iv) the metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element 540G, 540B, 540R of at least one corresponding pixel element 532G, 532B, 532R (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36, first subpixel 532G, second subpixel 532B and third subpixel 532R) having a structural arrangement of the corresponding metastructures 648 different from that of the corresponding metastructured beam-steering or beam-shaping element 540G, 540B, 540R of at least one other pixel element 532G, 532B, 532R (Figs. 5C-7 & ¶ 49, the positioning and type of an array of nano-features 748 of are chosen for a meta-surface 740 to provide a desired modification to light emitted by an underlying subpixel. And the nano-features 748 have different diameters In other words, the meta-surfaces 540G, 540B, 540R have different positionings and types of nano-features (i.e., different structural arrangement of metastructures), such that a desired modification to light emitted by the respective subpixels 532G, 532B, 532R is provided; ¶ 25, each subpixel has its own angular meta-surface) so as to exhibit a different corresponding steering angle or angular radiative distribution at a given wavelength or so as to exhibit the same steering angle or angular radiative distribution at a different corresponding output wavelength (Figs. 5C-7 & ¶ 36-¶ 38).
Regarding claim 12, Ahmed in Figs. 2 and 5C further teaches (i) one or more or all subsets 230 forming corresponding contiguous (i.e., adjacent) subarrays of pixel elements 232 (Fig. 2 & ¶ 26, subpixels 232) within the array, or
(ii) the pixel elements 232, 532G, 532B, 532R of one or more or all subsets 230, 530 being interspersed (i.e., distributed at intervals) across the array among pixel elements 232, 532G, 532B, 532R of other subsets 230, 530 (Figs. 2 & 5C).
Regarding claim 13, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches for one or more subsets 530, all primary optical elements 540G, 540B, 540R corresponding to the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R of that subset 530 are arranged to exhibit the same corresponding effective focal length, steering angle, or angular radiative distribution (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36-¶ 38, meta-surfaces 540 provide the same angle of light 545 emitted by all subpixels 532).
Regarding claim 14, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches for each subset 530, primary optical elements 540G, 540B, 540R corresponding to the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R of that subset 530 are arranged to exhibit the same corresponding effective focal length, steering angle, or angular radiative distribution (Fig. 5C & ¶ 36-¶ 38, meta-surfaces 540 provide the same angle of light 545 emitted by all subpixels 532), each subset differing from at least one other pixel subset with respect to the corresponding effective focal length, steering angle, or angular radiation distribution (¶ 36-¶ 38, different pixels 532 provide different angles).
Regarding claim 17, Ahmed in Fig. 5C further teaches a drive circuit (Fig. 5C & ¶ 33, circuitry with thin film transistors, data driver and scan driver chips) connected to the light-emitting array 532 and arranged so as to enable independent operation or selective operation of the subsets 530 (¶ 38; see Note below).
Note: A limitation of "so as to enable independent operation or selective operation of the subsets" is attempting to define the claimed driver circuit by what it does, rather than by what it is, which can be evidenced by their specific structures or specific compositions. See MPEP § 2173.05(g). The limitation can be construed as a function and/or a property of the claimed light-emitting device.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Here, since Ahmed teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed light-emitting device, the light-emitting device taught by Ahmed is capable of performing the claimed function as recited in the limitation above.
Furthermore, according to Section 2112.III of the MPEP, "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic{,} and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims {underlined for emphasis}."
Here, the limitations do not structurally distinguish the claimed driver circuit over the prior art as is it directed to a function or property of the claimed the light-emitting device. The light-emitting device including inherently has the property or can function as recited in the limitation above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Ahmed.
Regarding claim 7, Ahmed in Fig. 5C teaches nonzero spacing of the pixel elements 532G, 532B, 532R of the array 532.
Ahmed does not explicitly disclose the nonzero spacing being less than 0.10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the nonzero spacing within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 15-16 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 2, all of the pixel elements of the light-emitting array emitting pixel output light at a single output wavelength.
Claim 3 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 3, all of the pixel elements of each subset emitting pixel output light at a single corresponding output wavelength that differs from the corresponding output wavelength of at least one other subset.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9, metastructured angular filters positioned at emission surfaces of corresponding pixel elements of the array or between the emission surfaces and the primary optics array, each angular filter being arranged so as to exhibit one or both of (i) incidence-angle-dependent optical transmission of the corresponding pixel output light that decreases with increasing angle of incidence or that has a cutoff angle of incidence above which optical transmission is substantially prevented, or (ii) transmissive redirection of pixel output light exiting the corresponding pixel element to propagate at an angle less than a corresponding incident angle or refracted angle.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 10, (i) each primary optical element including a metastructured lens, each being characterized by a corresponding effective focal length, (ii) metastructures of the metastructured lenses including one or more of: multitudes of suitably sized and shaped projections, holes, depressions, inclusions, or structures; arrays of nano-antennae; partial photonic bandgap structures; photonic crystals; or arrays of meta-atoms or meta-molecules, (iii) the metastructures of each metastructured lens being arranged relative to the corresponding output wavelength so as to collectively impart on the pixel output light a transverse-position-dependent phase delay that results in the corresponding effective focal length, and (iv) the metastructured lens of at least one corresponding pixel element having a structural arrangement of the corresponding metastructures different from that of the corresponding metastructured lens of at least one other pixel element so as to exhibit a different corresponding effective focal length at a given wavelength or so as to exhibit the same effective focal length at a different corresponding output wavelength.
Claim 15 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 15, the light-emitting array and the primary optics array being arranged so that far-field imaging, beam steering, or beam shaping of the array output light by the primary optics array results in a corresponding far-field illumination pattern, and so that selective operation of one or more different subsets results in different corresponding far-field illumination patterns.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because claim 16 depends from the allowable claim 15.
Claim 18 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 18, one or more sensors coupled to the drive circuit, the drive circuit being structured and programmed so as to selectively activate one or more subsets of pixel elements in response to signals from the one or more sensors so as to produce a selected far-field illumination pattern having one or more localized minima or maxima.
Claim 19 would be allowable, because claim 16 depends from the allowable claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0121004 A1 to Ahmed et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817