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
Applicant’s election filed on 6/1/2026, without traverse to prosecute the claims of Invention, claims 1-25 and 28-31 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2024 and 6/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3 line 4 uses the phrase “such that” consecutively in a sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4 lines 3, 6, and 9 state “…the high opacity filler opacity transmits less than…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5 line 8 states, “…spaced apart from each of the first and sets of light emitters…” For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets it to read “…spaced apart from each of the first and second sets of light emitters…” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, 16-17, 21, 25, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 117219722 A) in view of Huber (US 20180059429 A1, IDS).
Re Claim 1 Chen teaches A LED (Light Emitting Diode) display module (FIG. 8-10 and 15), comprising:
a substrate (400, page 9 par 4);
a matrix of at least first (502, page 9 par 3) and second (501) spaced apart sets of light emitters (210, page 9 par 1), electrically attached to the substrate (400, page 9 par 4 states, “referring to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, the light emitting device further comprises a substrate 400, a plurality of light emitting bodies 500 are sequentially mounted on the substrate 400 at intervals, the substrate unit 101 at the bottom of the light emitting body 500 is electrically connected through the outside of the substrate 400,In this way, the chip group 210 in the light emitting body 500 can be electrically conducted to emit light.”), and extending above the substrate (400);
first (322, page 9 par 3) and second (321, page 9 par 3) polarizers disposed above the first (502) and second (501) sets of light emitters (210), respectively; wherein the polarity of the first polarizer (322) is different from the second (321) polarizer (page 10 last par states, “The first polarizing film 321 and the second polarizing film 322 are arranged at intervals and alternately to cover the light emitting unit so as to ensure that the polarizing direction of each black colloid material is different from the polarizing direction of the polarizing film 320 on the adjacent black colloid material.”);
a high opacity filler (330, page 6 par 3) extending between the first (502) and second (501) sets of light emitters (210); and
a low opacity coating (340, page 8 par 5 says 340 can be polyester resin) disposed above the first (502) and second (501) polarizers and the high opacity filler (330, FIG. 15).
Chen does not teach the high opacity filler disposed at a height that extends past the top of each of the first and second polarizers.
Huber teaches the high opacity filler (1203 [0076] “alloy cover” & 1402 [0078], 1203 blocks light, and 1402 acts as filler between LED packages) disposed at a height that extends past the top of each of the first (left) and second (right) polarizers (FIG. 12).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Huber into the structure of Chen since Huber teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huber in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of forming the high opacity layer in the LED matrix above the polarizers to allow one to build a structure that functions optimally to show a separate view for each eye of the user. [0002] states, “Stereoscopic display systems attempt to recreate a real world visual experience wherein a viewer sees a different view or image in each eye. In a real world viewing experience, a viewer with two eyes sees two slightly different images, as each eye is spaced apart in a slightly different viewing position. A goal of stereoscopic video display systems is to present a separate and different view to each eye of the viewer.”
Re Claim 2 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the light emitters (Chen, 210) are contained in light emitter packages (500, FIG. 8).
Re Claim 3 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the high opacity filler extends over the top of the first and second polarizers such that it occludes at least 0.5% of the edge of the top surface of the first and second polarizers.
Huber teaches the high opacity filler (1203 & 1402) extends over the top of the first (left) and second (right) polarizers such that it occludes the edge of the top surface of the first (left) and second (right) polarizers (FIG. 12 & 14).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Huber into the structure of Chen in view of Huber to form the high opacity filler to be disposed such that it occludes the edge of the top surface of the first and second polarizers by the optimal amount.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huber in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming the high opacity layer in the LED matrix above the polarizers to allow one to build a structure that functions optimally to show a separate view for each eye of the user. [0002] states, “Stereoscopic display systems attempt to recreate a real world visual experience wherein a viewer sees a different view or image in each eye. In a real world viewing experience, a viewer with two eyes sees two slightly different images, as each eye is spaced apart in a slightly different viewing position. A goal of stereoscopic video display systems is to present a separate and different view to each eye of the viewer.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach optimal high opacity filler position over the first and second polarizers.
Re Claim 4 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein each of the first (Chen, 502) and second (501) sets of light emitters emits at least three different colors (red, green, and blue, page 5 par 3).
Re Claim 7 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, further comprising first and second diffusers (Huber, 400) [0052] disposed under the first (203) [0050] and second (303) [0051] polarizers, respectively (FIG. 6).
Re Claim 9 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein each of the first (Chen, 502) and second (501) sets of light emitters (210) is distanced from the first (322) and second (321) polarizers, respectively (FIG. 5).
Re Claim 10 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first (Chen, 322) and second (321) polarizers polarize light in different circularly polarized directions, respectively (page 7 par 4 states, “As an example, the first polarizing film 321 maybe a left-handed circular polarizing film or a right-handed circular polarizing film, and the second polarizing film 322 may be a right-handed circular polarizing film or a left-handed circular polarizing film.”).
Re Claim 11 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first (Chen, 322) and second (321) polarizers polarize light in left and right directions, respectively (page 7 par 4 states, “As an example, the first polarizing film 321 maybe a left-handed circular polarizing film or a right-handed circular polarizing film, and the second polarizing film 322 may be a right-handed circular polarizing film or a left-handed circular polarizing film.”).
Re Claim 12 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first polarizer (Huber, left) is one of a total even number (72) of left directional polarizers (FIG. 10).
Re Claim 13 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first polarizer (322, belong to 502) is one of a total odd number (17 total 502 in FIG. 10) of left directional polarizers (322, FIG. 8-10).
Re Claim 14 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first polarizer (Chen, 322) is one of multiple left directional polarizers (page 7 par 4 states, “…322 may be a right-handed circular polarizing film or a left-handed circular polarizing film.”), and the second polarizer (321) is one of multiple right directional polarizers (page 7 par 4 states, “…321 maybe a left-handed circular polarizing film or a right-handed circular polarizing film, …”), and the left (322) and right (321) polarizers are arranged in a checkerboard pattern (FIG. 10).
Re Claim 15 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first polarizer (Huber, left) is one of multiple left directional polarizers, and the second polarizer (right) is one of multiple right directional polarizers, and the left and right polarizers are arranged in alternating rows (FIG. 19).
Re Claim 16 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the first (Chen, 322) and second (321) polarizers are included within a polarizing film (page 7 par 4 states, “The polarizing film 320 includes a first polarizing film 321 and a second polarizing film322…”).
Re Claim 17 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the high opacity filler (Chen, 330) opacity comprises a resin (page 8 par 3 states, “…330 may be an epoxy resin…”).
Re Claim 21 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein each of the first (Chen, 501, 500 on left in FIG. 8) and second (502, 500 2nd from left in FIG. 8) sets of light emitters (210) is contained within a surface-mounted device LED package (500, page 9 par 3, FIG. 8).
Re Claim 25 Chen in view of Huber teaches the sets of light emitters (700, 701) [0058] produce infrared light ([0033] states, “Any type of LEDs or similar devices may be employed, including but not limited to RGBY, RGBW (white), RGB plus infrared…”, FIG. 11).
Re Claim 28 Chen teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the matrix (Chen, FIG. 10) further comprises a third set of light emitters (210 in 502, see drawing below), spaced apart from each of the first (502) and sets (501) of light emitters (210), electrically attached to the substrate (400, page 9 par 4 states, “referring to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, the light emitting device further comprises a substrate 400, a plurality of light emitting bodies 500 are sequentially mounted on the substrate 400 at intervals, the substrate unit 101 at the bottom of the light emitting body 500 is electrically connected through the outside of the substrate 400,In this way, the chip group 210 in the light emitting body 500 can be electrically conducted to emit light.”), and extending above the substrate (400); a third polarizer (321) disposed above the third set of light emitters (210 in 501), wherein the polarity of the third polarizer (page 7 par 4 states, “As an example, the first polarizing film 321 maybe a left-handed circular polarizing film or a right-handed circular polarizing film, and the second polarizing film 322 may be a right-handed circular polarizing film or a left-handed circular polarizing film.” The 2nd and 3rd polarizers are both 321. Therefore, the third polarizer 321 is different than the first polarizer 322) is different from the first polarizer (321); the high opacity filler (330) extending between the third set of light emitters (210 in 501, see drawing below, page 6 par 3 states, “The light blocking layer 330 is disposed around the periphery of each of the chip groups 210…”) and either the first or second sets of light emitters (see modified FIG. 10 below),
and the low opacity coating (340) disposed above the third polarizers (322) and the high opacity filler (330).
Chen modified FIG. 10 shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
635
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not teach the high opacity filler is disposed at a height that extends past the top of the third polarizers.
Huber teaches the high opacity filler (1203 & 1402) [0076] is disposed at a height that extends past the top of the third (right) polarizers (FIG. 12 & 14).
Huber modified FIG. 12 shown below
PNG
media_image2.png
554
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Huber into the structure of Chen to form the high opacity filler to be disposed at a height that extends past the top of each of the third polarizer.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huber in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of forming the high opacity layer in the LED matrix above the polarizers to allow one to build a structure that functions optimally to show a separate view for each eye of the user. [0002] states, “Stereoscopic display systems attempt to recreate a real world visual experience wherein a viewer sees a different view or image in each eye. In a real world viewing experience, a viewer with two eyes sees two slightly different images, as each eye is spaced apart in a slightly different viewing position. A goal of stereoscopic video display systems is to present a separate and different view to each eye of the viewer.”
Re Claim 29 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 28, wherein the first (Chen, 502), second (501), and third (501) sets of light emitters (210) are disposed as a strip of emitters (see modified FIG 10 under claim 28).
Re Claim 30 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 28, wherein the first (Huber, left), second (right), and third (right) sets of light emitters (700, 701) [0058] are disposed in an L pattern (see modified FIG. 12 under claim 28).
Re Claim 31 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 28, wherein the first (Chen, 322), second (321), and third (321) polarizers are separately coupled with the first (502), second (501), and third (501) sets of light emitters (210) as first (502), second (501), and third (501) light emitting packages, respectively (FIG. 14 and modified FIG. 10 under claim 28).
Claims 5-6, 8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 117219722 A) in view of Huber (US 20180059429 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hussell et al. (US 20210399183 A1).
Re Claim 5 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach each of the first and second sets of light emitters includes a single light emitting element addressable to produce a range of wavelengths between 400 and 750 nanometers.
Hussell [0057] teaches, “For example, the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” [0091] states, “FIG. 14A is a perspective view of a light-emitting device 80 where multiple groups of LED chips 12-1 to 12-3 form an array of LED pixels…” [0066] states, “LED chips 12-1 to 12-3 comprise individual LED chips that generate different dominant wavelengths of light. For example, the LED chip 12-1 may be configured to generate predominantly red emissions, the LED chip 12-2 may be configured to generate predominantly green emissions, and the LED chip 12-3 may be configured to generate predominantly blue emissions.” Therefore, the pixels in FIG. 14A containing 16-1 and 16-2 (first and second sets of light emitters) each contain light emitters (12-1 to 12-3) addressable to produce a range of wavelengths stated in [0057].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing light of optimal wavelengths to obtain high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths being produced by the display device.
Re Claim 6 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach each of the first and second sets of light emitters includes multiple light emitting elements that are collectively addressable to produce a range of wavelengths between 400 and 750 nanometers.
Hussell [0057] teaches, “For example, the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” [0091] states, “FIG. 14A is a perspective view of a light-emitting device 80 where multiple groups of LED chips 12-1 to 12-3 form an array of LED pixels…” [0066] states, “LED chips 12-1 to 12-3 comprise individual LED chips that generate different dominant wavelengths of light. For example, the LED chip 12-1 may be configured to generate predominantly red emissions, the LED chip 12-2 may be configured to generate predominantly green emissions, and the LED chip 12-3 may be configured to generate predominantly blue emissions.” Therefore, the pixels in FIG. 14A containing 16-1 and 16-2 (first and second sets of light emitters) each contain light emitters (12-1 to 12-3) that are collectively addressable to produce a range of wavelengths stated in [0057].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing light of optimal wavelengths to obtain high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths being produced by the display device.
Re Claim 8 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 7, but does not teach wherein the high opacity filler is disposed about the first set of light emitters, the first diffuser, and the first polarizer such that such that at least a combined total of 45% intensity of light between 400 and 750 nanometers, which passes out of the matrix from the first set of light emitters, passes through the first polarizer.
Hussell teaches [0057], “…the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” Chen in view of Huber teaches the structure of claims 1 and 7, and integrating Hussell into Chen in view of Huber would leave one with a display module that the high opacity filler (Huber, 1203 & 1402, FIG. 12 & 14) is disposed about the first (700, FIG. 6) set of light emitters, the first diffuser (400), and the first polarizer (203) such that such that at least a combined total of 45% intensity of light between wavelengths taught by Hussell, which passes out of the matrix from the first set of light emitters (700), passes through the first polarizer (Huber, 203, FIG. 6 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths being produced by the display device.
Re Claim 18 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach the high opacity filler opacity transmits less than 80% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating of light between 400 and 750 nanometers, for total light intensity less than 20 lumens.
Hussell teaches [0057], “…the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” Chen in view of Huber teaches the structure of claim 1, and integrating Hussell into Chen in view of Huber would leave one with a display module that the high opacity filler (Chen, 330) transmits less than 80% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating (340) of light between wavelengths taught by Hussell, for total light intensity less than 20 lumens (Chen, FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths and intensity being produced by the display device.
Re Claim 19 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach the high opacity filler opacity transmits less than 50% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating of light between 400 and 750 nanometers, for total light intensity less than 20 lumens.
Hussell teaches [0057], “…the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” Chen in view of Huber teaches the structure of claim 1, and integrating Hussell into Chen in view of Huber would leave one with a display module that the high opacity filler (Chen, 330) transmits less than 50% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating (340) of light between wavelengths taught by Hussell, for total light intensity less than 20 lumens (Chen, FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths and intensity being produced by the display device.
Re Claim 20 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach the high opacity filler opacity transmits less than 20% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating of light between 400 and 750 nanometers, for total light intensity less than 20 lumen.
Hussell teaches [0057], “…the active LED structure for various LEDs may emit blue light with a peak wavelength range of approximately 430 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, green light with a peak wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, or red light with a peak wavelength range of 600 nm to 650 nm.” Chen in view of Huber teaches the structure of claim 1, and integrating Hussell into Chen in view of Huber would leave one with a display module that the high opacity filler (Chen, 330) transmits less than 20% of light transmitted by the low opacity coating (340) of light between wavelengths taught by Hussell, for total light intensity less than 20 lumens (Chen, FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation of forming a display module capable of producing high luminous efficacy. [0003] states, “LEDs have been widely adopted in various illumination contexts, for backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) systems (e.g., as a substitute for cold cathode fluorescent lamps), and for direct-view LED displays. Applications utilizing LED arrays include vehicular headlamps, roadway illumination, light fixtures, and various indoor, outdoor, and specialty contexts. Desirable characteristics of LED devices include high luminous efficacy, and long lifetime.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal wavelengths and intensity being produced by the display device.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 117219722 A) in view of Huber (US 20180059429 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hussell (TW 202013768 A).
Re Claim 22 Chen in view of Huber teaches the display module of claim 1, but does not teach the matrix includes at least 100 of the sets of light emitters.
Hussell teaches the matrix (1000, FIG. 17A) includes at least 100 of the sets (page 21 par 1 states, “The panel 1000 may be constructed using an array of LED devices such as disclosed herein (eg, 100, 300, 400, 500, etc.).”) of light emitters (100, FIG. 2A, page 11 par 4 states, “The LED component 130 is then placed on the die attach layer 120 so that the light emitting surface 132 is in contact with the die attach layer 120. The LED components 130 may be grouped into an array, and may include multiple colors such as red, green, and blue (RGB) LEDs.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hussell into the structure of Chen in view of Huber since Hussell teaches a display device made up of LED packages.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussell in combination with Chen in view of Huber in the above manner for the motivation building a display device large enough to be used as a video screen. Page 2 par 3 states, “One such application is the use of LEDs in video screens.”
Re Claim 23 Chen in view of Huber and Hussell teaches the display module of claim 1, wherein the matrix (Hussell, 1000, FIG. 17A) includes at least 1000 (page 21 par 1 states, “The panel 1000 may be constructed using an array of LED devices such as disclosed herein (eg, 100, 300, 400, 500, etc.).”) of the sets of light emitters (100, FIG. 2A, page 11 par 4 states, “The LED component 130 is then placed on the die attach layer 120 so that the light emitting surface 132 is in contact with the die attach layer 120. The LED components 130 may be grouped into an array, and may include multiple colors such as red, green, and blue (RGB) LEDs.”).
Re Claim 24 Chen in view of Huber and Hussell teaches the display module of claim 1 (Hussell, 100, FIG. 2A, page 11 par 4 states, “The LED component 130 is then placed on the die attach layer 120 so that the light emitting surface 132 is in contact with the die attach layer 120. The LED components 130 may be grouped into an array, and may include multiple colors such as red, green, and blue (RGB) LEDs.”), physically coupled with at least 99 (page 21 par 1 states, “The panel 1000 may be constructed using an array of LED devices such as disclosed herein (eg, 100, 300, 400, 500, etc.).”) other instances of the display module of claim 1 (FIG. 17A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Suich et al. (US 20230170449 A1) teaches integrating a high opacity filler between LED packages to isolating the LED packages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MARK SIPLING whose telephone number is (571)272-3269. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/KENNETH MARK SIPLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 9/3/26
Prosecution Insights