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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of the Invention I and species A in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all inventions and species presents no burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require separate field of search due to their different subclasses. The prior art that is applicable to one invention would not likely to be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120194764 A1 to Ishizumi.
Regarding Claim 1. Ishizumi discloses, a display engine, comprising: an arrayed light source panel including a light source array that includes a plurality of individually addressable light sources (Fig. 2 LEDs 32), each light source being configured to emit a first light beam associated with a first wavelength band (para 69-70); a beam reshaping module including a plurality of beam reshaping elements, each beam reshaping element being configured to reshape a first beam profile of the first light beam and output a second light beam with a second beam profile (Fig. 2 optical sheet 31, para 68); a transmissive display driver panel (Fig. 2 display panel 10) including a display driver module integrated with a pixelated color conversion module, the pixelated color conversion module including a plurality of color conversion units configured to at least partially convert the second light beam associated with the first wavelength band into a third light beam associated with a second wavelength band (Fig. 2 fluorescent layer 13, para 76 and para 82); and an active light modulation medium configured to be controllable by the transmissive display driver panel (Fig. 2 liquid crystal layer 17), and configured to modulate the third light beam received from the transmissive display driver panel for displaying an image (See Fig. 2 where light transmitted through layer 13 is received by layer 17 to be modulated).
Regarding Claim 8. Ishizumi further discloses the first light beam output from each light source is a blue light beam or a UV light beam (para 69-70).
Regarding Claim 9. Ishizumi further discloses the third light beam output from each pixelated color conversion module is one of a blue light beam, a green light beam, a red light beam, or a white light beam (para 82).
Regarding Claim 15. Ishizumi further discloses the pixelated color conversion module includes at least one of quantum dots, a fluorescent material, a phosphorescent material, a photoluminescent material, quantum wells, semiconductor nanowires, or quantum nano-wires (para 82).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizumi as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20130127927 A1 to IP et al.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above Ishizumi discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Ishizumi does not specifically disclose that each light source is a laser light source.
However, Ip discloses that a light field for illuminating a display may be produced with various components and combination thereof, among which include a light source as a laser light source (See at least para 87 “light field may be generated by the plurality of optical components comprising one or more of .. light emitting diodes, lasers”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that each light source is a laser light source.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizumi and Ip as applied to claim 10 in view of US 20140376261 A1 to Liu et al.
Regarding Claim 11. As stated above Ishizumi and Ip discloses all the limitations of base claim 10.
Ishizumi and Ip do not specifically disclose that the laser light source includes one of a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, a photonic-crystal surface emitting laser, an in-plane cavity surface emitting laser, an edge-emitting laser, a laser diode, a fiber laser, a heterogeneously integrated laser, or a nonlinearly converted light source.
However, Liu discloses that a laser light source may include a laser diode (See para 65), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the laser light source includes one of a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, a photonic-crystal surface emitting laser, an in-plane cavity surface emitting laser, an edge-emitting laser, a laser diode, a fiber laser, a heterogeneously integrated laser, or a nonlinearly converted light source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871