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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 December, 2025, have been considered, but are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the correspondingly necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below. Specifically, the claims were amended to recite that the at least one spacer is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0146079 to Tamma et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0129233 to Cheng et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0276993 to Lo et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Tamma discloses (e.g., Fig. 5 and its description) a metalens array module comprising: at least one optical transparent substrate 130S; a plurality of nanostructures arranged on the at least one optical transparent substrate (nanostructures forming metasurfaces 505T/B; Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0045]–[0046]), the plurality of nanostructures defining one or more metalenses (paragraphs [0045]–[0046]), the one or more metalenses arranged in a predetermined arrangement (Fig. 5).
Tamma discloses that the metalens structure may be part of an adaptive lighting system 500, useful for illuminating various display devices (e.g., paragraphs [0001]–[0002]), but Tamma does not explicitly disclose that the metalens array includes at least one E-ink display module; and at least one spacer connecting the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon.
Cheng discloses a backlight module used for a display, such as an electrophoretic (or e-ink) display, and teaches a spacer (e.g., support 602) that connects the display 700 and the backlight (which includes transparent substrate), the spacer disposed between the display and the backlight (e.g., Fig. 5 illustrating details of the backlight; Fig. 7 illustrating details of the overall system; and their corresponding descriptions in at least paragraphs [0032]–[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Tamma such that the backlight of Tamma is used in a display system, as suggested by Tamma, such as the e-ink display taught by Cheng, including at least one spacer connecting the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, as taught by Cheng, in order to support the display panel and achieve an electrophoretic display with its attendant advantages, such as reduced power consumption.
The combination of Tamma and Cheng does not explicitly disclose the more specifically claimed location of the spacer, that the at least one spacer is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon.
Lo discloses a display with a backlight, and teaches spacer 130 is formed between backlight module 102 and display panel 104 to maintain the distance therebetween, where the spacer is formed directly on an upper surface of the backlight module (e.g., paragraphs [0027]–[0028] and Fig. 6 of Lo; noting that Tamma, Fig. 5, illustrates that the surface with the metasurface 505T is the upper surface of the lighting module of Tamma).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Tamma and Cheng such that the at least one spacer is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon, as taught by Lo, in order to maintain desired spacing between the respective components of the module.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious a polarizer module, wherein the polarizer module is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer is positioned between the polarizer module and the at least one optical transparent substrate and the plurality of nanostructures, the polarizer module is configured to polarize light illuminated by the at least one E-ink display module (e.g., paragraph [0036] of Cheng; paragraph [0033] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious an optically transparent glue, wherein the optically transparent glue is disposed between the polarizer module and the at least one E-ink display module, the polarizer module is laminated to the at least one E-ink display module by the optically transparent glue (where the references appear silent regarding a glue, but such would have been obvious as a well-known means of adhering components within a display, achieving expected and predictable results).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more metalenses are arranged in a non-overlapping configuration (e.g., Fig. 5 of Tamma, metalens 505T).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more metalenses are arranged in an overlapping configuration (e.g., Fig. 5 of Tamma, metalenses 505T/B).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein each of the plurality of nanostructures is in an isotropic, an anisotropic, or a combination of isotropic and anisotropic shapes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape and arranged in different geometrical phases (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape but with different sizes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in different shapes and different sizes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious at least one light guide (e.g., 500 of Cheng), wherein the at least one light guide is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate and the plurality of nanostructures (where in the combination, the light guide 500 would be between the light source of Tamma and the display of Cheng), the at least one light guide is configured to uniformly distribute lights over the at least one E-ink display module (e.g., paragraph [0036] of Cheng, may include diffusion plate, where diffusion plate is generally understood to facilitate uniform distribution of light).
Regarding Claim 11, Tamma discloses (e.g., Fig. 5 and its description) a display device (Tamma discloses that the metalens structure may be part of an adaptive lighting system 500, useful for illuminating various display devices, e.g., paragraphs [0001]–[0002]) comprising: at least one glass 160S; and a metalens array module combined with the at least one glass (nanostructures forming metasurfaces 505T/B; Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0045]–[0046]), the metalens array comprising: at least one optical transparent substrate 130S; a plurality of nanostructures arranged on the at least one optical transparent substrate, the plurality of nanostructures defining one or more metalenses, the one or more metalenses arranged in a predetermined arrangement (nanostructures forming metasurfaces 505T/B; Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0045]–[0046]).
Tamma discloses that the metalens structure may be part of an adaptive lighting system 500, useful for illuminating various display devices (e.g., paragraphs [0001]–[0002]), but Tamma does not explicitly disclose that the metalens array includes at least one E-ink display module; and at least one spacer connecting the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon.
Cheng discloses a backlight module used for a display, such as an electrophoretic (or e-ink) display, and teaches a spacer (e.g., support 602) that connects the display 700 and the backlight (which includes transparent substrate), the spacer disposed between the display and the backlight (e.g., Fig. 5 illustrating details of the backlight; Fig. 7 illustrating details of the overall system; and their corresponding descriptions in at least paragraphs [0032]–[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Tamma such that the backlight of Tamma is used in a display system, as suggested by Tamma, such as the e-ink display taught by Cheng, including at least one spacer connecting the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, as taught by Cheng, in order to support the display panel and achieve an electrophoretic display with its attendant advantages, such as reduced power consumption.
The combination of Tamma and Cheng does not explicitly disclose the more specifically claimed location of the spacer, that the at least one spacer is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon.
Lo discloses a display with a backlight, and teaches spacer 130 is formed between backlight module 102 and display panel 104 to maintain the distance therebetween, where the spacer is formed directly on an upper surface of the backlight module (e.g., paragraphs [0027]–[0028] and Fig. 6 of Lo; noting that Tamma, Fig. 5, illustrates that the surface with the metasurface 505T is the upper surface of the lighting module of Tamma).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Tamma and Cheng such that the at least one spacer is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and a surface of the at least one optical transparent substrate having the plurality of nanostructures arranged thereon, as taught by Lo, in order to maintain desired spacing between the respective components of the module.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the metalens array further comprises a polarizer module, the polarizer module is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate, the at least one spacer is positioned between the polarizer module and the at least one optical transparent substrate and the plurality of nanostructures, the polarizer module is configured to polarize light illuminated by the at least one E-ink display module (e.g., paragraph [0036] of Cheng; paragraph [0033] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the metalens array further comprises an optically transparent glue, the optically transparent glue is disposed between the polarizer module and the at least one E-ink display module, the polarizer module is laminated to the at least one E-ink display module by the optically transparent glue (where the references appear silent regarding a glue, but such would have been obvious as a well-known means of adhering components within a display, achieving expected and predictable results).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more metalenses are arranged in a non-overlapping configuration or an overlapping configuration (e.g., Fig. 5 of Tamma, metalenses 505T or 505T/B).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein each of the plurality of nanostructures is in an isotropic, an anisotropic, or a combination of isotropic and anisotropic shapes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape and arranged in different geometrical phases (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape but with different sizes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in different shapes and different sizes (e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032]–[0035] of Tamma).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious wherein the metalens array further comprises at least one light guide (e.g., 500 of Cheng), the at least one light guide is disposed between the at least one E-ink display module and the at least one optical transparent substrate and the plurality of nanostructures (where in the combination, the light guide 500 would be between the light source of Tamma and the display of Cheng), the at least one light guide is configured to uniformly distribute lights over the at least one E-ink display module (e.g., paragraph [0036] of Cheng, may include diffusion plate, where diffusion plate is generally understood to facilitate uniform distribution of light).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Tamma and Cheng would have rendered obvious at least one LED (e.g., 110 of Tamma), wherein the at least one LED is positioned around the at least one glass (Fig. 5 of Tamma), the at least one LED is configured to emit a plurality of light beams to a direction to the at least one E-ink display module (Fig. 5 of Tamma), the at least one E-ink display module is further configured to reflect the plurality of light beams to the plurality of nanostructures and the at least one optical transparent substrate (e.g., Fig. 5 of Tamma, as combined with the E-ink display taught and suggested by Cheng).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871