Detailed Action
1. 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 Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 11-14 have been amended. Claims 4 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “optical module” in claim 1.
Because the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As for the limitation "optical module”, a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph): [0080] of the specification and Figs. 1-10 of the drawing disclose the "optical module” correspond to a micro lens, a micro prism, or micro mirror.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LI (US 20220344313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LI (e.g., Fig. 6) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) pixel unit (Fig. 6B shows an example of a tri-color LED pixel unit, which is reproduced for reference), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
733
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs) with different emission wavelengths, stacked to form a stacked structure (a tri-color LED pixel unit comprising a red micro-LED, a green micro-LED, and a blue micro-LED with a stacked LED structure; [0207], [0220], and [0234]);
wherein the stacked structure has a light-emitting surface (light-emitting surface S of the tri-color LED unit), and the stacked structure is configured to emit, from the light-emitting surface, light emitted by the plurality of micro-LEDs at a first emission angle (emission light from the tri-color LED unit has a divergence angle; [0382]); and
an optical module (micro lens 602; [0375]), disposed above the light-emitting surface (light-emitting surface S) and at a predetermined distance from the light-emitting surface (predetermined distance between the micro lens and the tri-color LED unit; [0385]);
wherein a projection area of a vertical projection of the optical module is greater than or equal to a projection area of a vertical projection of the stacked structure (Figs. 6A-6D and [0374]; a projection area of the micro lens 602 is greater than a projection area of the LED stacked structure); and
the optical module (micro lens 602) is configured to emit, at a second emission angle, the light emitted by the light-emitting surface ([0375] and [0382]; LED light from the micro lens 602 having a reduced divergence angle); and
partitions, disposed on two sides of the stacked structure to block light ([0190]-[0191], [0399] and [0404]-[0405]; reflective structures 146 and 148 form partitions or sidewall of the tri-color LED pixel unit and block light emitted from the tri-color LED pixel unit);
wherein a sidewall of the stacked structure is covered with a light shielding layer ([0404] and [0405]; sidewalls 146 and 148 covered with a metallic light reflective layer); and the partitions and the light shielding layer are jointly configured to make the first emission angle less than or equal to 130° ([0402] teach that the sidewalls 146 and 148 including light reflective layer form a reflective cup, which defines a light divergence angle A corresponding to an emission angle, and A<130°).
Regarding claim 2, LI (e.g., Fig. 6) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width of the stacked structure is d1, a width of the optical module is d2, the predetermined distance between the optical module and the light-emitting surface is d3, and the first emission angle is A; and d1≤d2≤2d3tan
A
2
(Fig. 6D is reproduced for reference. According to Fig. 6D, LI teaches the LED stacked structure has a width d1 and a light divergence angle A, the micro lens 602 has a width d2, and a distance between the micro lens and the light-emitting surface of the LED stacked structure is d3, and d1<d2, d2=2d3tan
A
2
, [0382] teaches a range of divergence angle A and A<130°).
PNG
media_image2.png
660
1304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein projection areas of vertical projections of the plurality of micro-LEDs are equal ([0048]), and the plurality of micro-LEDs have same light-emitting axes ([0049]), wherein projection areas of vertical projections of the plurality of micro-LEDs are decreased (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9), and the plurality of micro-LEDs have same light-emitting axes (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9; and [0049], [0267], [0221], and [0235]).
Regarding claim 5, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein projection areas of vertical projections of the plurality of micro-LEDs are decreased (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9), and a light-emitting axis of the micro-LED at a side of the stacked structure facing away from the light-emitting surface coincides with a light-emitting axis of the micro-LED at a side of the stacked structure proximate to the light-emitting surface (Figs. 1-2 and 6-9; e.g., red micro LED and blue micro LED have a same light-emitting axis; [0017], [0049], and [0267]).
Regarding claim 6, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 3, wherein a central axis of the optical module coincides with the light-emitting axes of the plurality of micro-LEDs ([0380]).
Regarding claim 8, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 5, wherein a central axis of the optical module coincides with the light-emitting axis of the micro-LED at the side of the stacked structure proximate to the light-emitting surface (Fig. 6 and [0380]; micro lens 602 and LED pixel unit).
Regarding claim 13, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses a display panel (Fig. 11; micro LED display panel 1100; [0176]), comprising: a substrate (Figs. 6C and 6D, substrate 690; Figs. 6A and 6B, substrate 104); and a plurality of pixel units (pixel unit 612), disposed on the substrate (substrate 690); wherein each of the plurality of pixel units is the LED pixel unit (Figs. 6A and 6B; LED pixel unit) as claimed in claim 1, the stacked structure of the LED pixel unit is disposed on the substrate (Fig. 6; LED pixel unit on substrate 690), and the optical module of the LED pixel unit is disposed at a side of the stacked structure facing away from the substrate (Fig. 6; micro lens 602 on LED pixel unit), and the partitions (partitions 146/148) are disposed on the substrate (substrate 104), and between the substrate (substrate 104) and the optical module (lens 602) to separate the plurality of pixel units (pixel unit 612).
PNG
media_image3.png
641
1089
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 13, wherein a width of the stacked structure is d1, a width of the optical module is d2, the predetermined distance between the optical module and the light-emitting surface is d3, and the first emission angle is A; and d1≤d2≤2d3tan
A
2
(Fig. 6D is reproduced reference. According to Fig. 6D, LI teaches the LED stacked structure has a width d1 and a light divergence angle A, the micro lens 602 has a width d2, and a distance between the micro lens and the light-emitting surface of the LED stacked structure is d3, and d1<d2, d2=2d3tan
A
2
, [0382] teaches a range of divergence angle A and A<130°).
Regarding claim 15, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 14, wherein a width of each of the plurality of pixel units is d4, and d1≤d2≤d4 (Fig. 6D; each pixel unit comprising a LED stacked structure and a micro lens and having a width d4, and d1<d2 and d2=d4).
Regarding claim 17, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 13, wherein a central axis of the optical module (e.g., Fig. 6; micro lens 602) and a light-emitting axis of the stacked structure (e.g., Fig. 6; LED stacked structure) are both perpendicular to the substrate (e.g., Fig. 6; substrate 690).
Regarding claim 19, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 13, wherein a central axis of the optical module coincides with light-emitting axes of at least two of the plurality of micro-LEDs (e.g., Fig. 6 and [0380]).
Regarding claim 20, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-11) discloses a display screen (Figs. 6 and 11; micro LED display), comprising: the display panel as claimed in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 9-10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over LI (US 20220344313 A1) in view of JOHNSON (US 20150301343 A1).
Regarding claim 9, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an angle α1 between a central axis of the optical module and light-emitting axes of the plurality of micro-LEDs is greater than 5°. However, JOHN (e.g., Figs. 5-8) discloses a LED pixel unit, wherein an angle α1 between a central axis of an optical module (micro lens 64) and light-emitting axes of a plurality of micro-LEDs (LED pixel unit 60) is greater than 5° (e.g., Figs. 5-8 and [0086]-[0087]; e.g., 15°). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from JOHNSON with the LED pixel unit of LI. The combination/motivation would be to provide a full-color autostereoscopic display device having an arrangement of display pixels for directing different views to different spatial positions.
Regarding claim 10, LI in view of JOHNSON discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 9, LI discloses wherein the light-emitting axes of the plurality of micro-LEDs are the same (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9; and [0049], [0267], [0221], and [0235]).
Regarding claim 16, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 13, but does not disclose wherein a central axis of the optical module is perpendicular to the substrate, and an angle between the stacked structure and the substrate is β1, which is greater than 5°. However, JOHNSON (e.g., Figs. 5-8) discloses a display panel comprising LED pixel units, wherein a central axis of the optical module (micro lens 64) is perpendicular to the substrate (substrate 62), and an angle between the LED structure (LED pixel unit 600) and the substrate (substrate 62) is β1, which is greater than 5° (e.g., Figs. 5-8 and [0086]-[0087]; e.g., 15°). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from JOHNSON with the LED pixel unit of LI. The combination/motivation would be to provide a full-color autostereoscopic display device having an arrangement of display pixels for directing different views to different spatial positions.
Regarding claim 18, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the display panel as claimed in claim 13, wherein the plurality of micro-LEDs have same light-emitting axes (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9; and [0049], [0267], [0221], and [0235]), but does not disclose an angle al between a central axis of the optical module and the light-emitting axis of each of the plurality of micro-LEDs is greater than 5°. However, JOHNSON (e.g., Figs. 5-8) discloses a display panel comprising LED pixel units, wherein an angle al between a central axis of an optical module (micro lens 64) and the light-emitting axis of each of a plurality of micro-LEDs (LED pixel unit 600) is greater than 5° (e.g., Figs. 5-8 and [0086]-[0087]; e.g., 15°). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from JOHNSON with the LED pixel unit of LI. The combination/motivation would be to provide a full-color autostereoscopic display device having an arrangement of display pixels for directing different views to different spatial positions.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over LI (US 20220344313 A1) in view of XU (CN111754887 A).
Regarding claim 11, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein a light-emitting angle α2 of the LED pixel unit is less than or equal to 80° ([0382]; light divergence angle), the optical module comprises a micro prism or a micro mirror, and the micro mirror comprises a concave mirror or a convex mirror (micro concave lens 602; [0375]). LI does not disclose a material of the light shielding layer comprises black glue. However, XU (Figs. 1-6) discloses a LED pixel unit, a material of the light shielding layer comprises black glue (claim 3 and [0010], [0060]; black glue). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from XU to the LED pixel unit of LI to further improve light shielding.
10. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over LI (US 20220344313 A1) in view of LIU (CN 113224212 A).
Regarding claim 21, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked structure comprises, from bottom to top, a first micro-LED, a second micro-LED, and a third micro-LED (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9), but does not disclose the ratio as claimed. However, LIU (e.g., Figs. 8-13; Fig. 9 is reproduced for reference) discloses a LED pixel unit,
PNG
media_image4.png
685
899
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the stacked structure comprises, from bottom to top, a first micro-LED, a second micro-LED, and a third micro-LED (e.g., Figs. 8-13; micro-LED A, micro-LED B, and micro-LED C); a ratio of a covered area to an uncovered area of the second micro-LED on the first micro-LED is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 3; and a ratio of a covered area to an uncovered area of the third micro-LED on the second micro-LED is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 2 (claim 3 and [0018]; micro-LED A has an area of 20*20-30*30 um2, micro-LED B has an area of 10*10-20*20 um2, and micro-LED C has an area of 2*2-10*10 um2, an area of micro-LED A to an area of micro-LED B has a ratio R1, which can be in a range of 1.5 ≤R1≤3, an area of micro-LED B to an area of micro-LED C has a ratio R2, which can be in a range of 0.5 ≤R2≤2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from LIU with the LED pixel unit of LI to control intensity efficiency of micro-LED with different colors.
11. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over LI (US 20220344313 A1) in view of SCHUELE (US 20200251451 A1).
Regarding claim 22, LI (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9) discloses the LED pixel unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked structure comprises, from bottom to top, a first micro-LED, a second micro-LED, and a third micro-LED (e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 6-9), but does not disclose the ratio as claimed. However, SCHUELE discloses a LED pixel unit, wherein the stacked structure comprises, from bottom to top, a first micro-LED, a second micro-LED, and a third micro-LED; and a ratio of projection areas of the first micro-LED, the second micro-LED and the third micro-LED is 10:6:4 (a ratio of relative areas of the first micro-LED, the second micro-LED, and the third micro-LED is 10:5:4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from SCHUELE with the LED pixel unit of LI to control intensity ratio of micro-LED with different colors and improve light emission efficiency from micro-LED stack.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 12 is 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention is directed to LED pixel units. The closet prior arts, LI (US 20220344313 A1), JOHNSON (US 20150301343 A1), XU (CN111754887 A), LIU (CN 113224212 A), and SCHUELE (US 20200251451 A1), individually or in combination, discloses A light-emitting diode (LED) pixel unit, comprising: a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (micro-LEDs) with different emission wavelengths, stacked to form a stacked structure; wherein the stacked structure has a light-emitting surface, and the stacked structure is configured to emit, from the light-emitting surface, light emitted by the plurality of micro-LEDs at a first emission angle; an optical module, disposed above the light-emitting surface and at a predetermined distance from the light-emitting surface; wherein a projection area of a vertical projection of the optical module is greater than or equal to a projection area of a vertical projection of the stacked structure; and the optical module is configured to emit, at a second emission angle, the light emitted by the light-emitting surface; and partitions, disposed on two sides of the stacked structure to block light; wherein a sidewall of the stacked structure is covered with a light shielding layer; and the partitions and the light shielding layer are jointly configured to make the first emission angle less than or equal to 130°, wherein the stacked structure comprises, from bottom to top, a red LED chip, a green LED chip, and a blue LED chip, but fail to teach a ratio of projection areas of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip is 10:7:3.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
13. Applicant has amended claim 1 by. Applicant further argues that the cited references do not disclose the new limitations of amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Regarding claim 1, LI (e.g., Fig. 6) discloses an example of a tri-color LED pixel unit, which is reproduced for reference, comprising reflective structures 146 and 148 that form partitions or sidewall of the tri-color LED pixel unit and block light emitted from the tri-color LED pixel unit ([0190]-[0191], [0399] and [0404]-[0405]). The sidewalls 146 and 148 covered with a metallic light reflective layer ([0404] and [0405]), which form a reflective cup, which defines a light divergence angle A corresponding to an emission angle, and A<130°.
PNG
media_image1.png
733
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights