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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-15 and 17-22 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 10 have been amended, claims 2, 5 and 16 have been canceled and new claims 20-22 have been added by the Applicant. Claims 12-15 and 19 were previously withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application of Continuation of PCT/CN2021/120265 , filed 09/24/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations for “an ordinary beam” that emerges along the undeviated propagation direction and “an extraordinary beam” that emerges parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by “a distance d” relative to the ordinary beam. However, these limitations are confusing, because it is unclear if these limitations are the same or different limitations as recited in base claim 1, for “an ordinary beam” that emerges along the undeviated propagation direction and “an extraordinary beam” that emerges parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by “a distance d”? It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
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 1,3-4, 6-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara JP 2003185974 A (of record, where attached English language machine translation is referenced).
In regard to independent claim 1, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) a projection display system (device for displaying image, see abstract, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-56], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 10-14) comprising:
a red light-emitting pixel array, a blue light-emitting pixel array, a green light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as liquid crystal display panel 1 with pixels 1a for each red 1R, green 1G and blue 1B, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 13), and
a light-combining prism (prism 23, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10), wherein the light-combining prism is disposed in optical paths of red light emitted by the red light-emitting pixel array, blue light emitted by the blue light-emitting pixel array, and green light emitted by the green light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as 23 is disposed in light paths of light from 1R, 1G, and 1B pixel arrays, see paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10), and is configured to combine the red light, the blue light, and the green light, and emit combined light along a same direction (i.e. as 23 combines light from 1R, 1G and 1B, and light from 4R, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. as depicted Figs. 4, 10); and
pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are as pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as pixel 1a dimensions of 1G and 1B are as pixel of 1R, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 13);
wherein at least one group of pixel expansion apparatuses is disposed between the red light-emitting pixel array and the light-combining prism (i.e. as 4 wobbling element 4R is disposed between 1R pixel array and prism 23, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10-12), and the at least one group of pixel expansion apparatuses (4, 4R) comprises:
a polarization apparatus (i.e. as 4R,as 4 has driven liquid crystal cell 2, 2a,b e.g. paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12) configured to alternately convert incident red polarized light between a first polarization state and a second polarization state in successive time intervals (i.e. as 2, (2a,b) is alternately driven (by 5, 5a,b driver) and rotates the polarization of light incident 1R light by 90 degrees alternately producing two different polarization states e.g. horizontal and vertical in successive time intervals, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12); and
a birefringent beam shifter comprising a transparent birefringent plate of predetermined thickness and optic-axis orientation (as beam shifter in the form of birefringent plate 3 (3a,b) with pre-determined thickness and optical axis, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12), configured, for the first polarization state, to emit an ordinary beam (0-ray) along an undeviated propagation direction (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first polarization along undeviated path as ordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]) and, for the second polarization state, to emit an extraordinary beam (e-ray) parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by a distance d relative to the ordinary beam (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes second polarization state light along shifted path e.g. as extraordinary light parallel to ordinary light , as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]); and
wherein the ordinary and extraordinary beams are parallel and non-coincident (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first and second polarization state light beams that are parallel and shifted e.g. as ordinary and shifted extraordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]), and the lateral displacement d is selected relative to a pixel pitch of the red light-emitting pixel array such that successive time-interlaced projected beams occupy distinct sampling positions within one pixel pitch (i.e. as the sifted amount by wobbling element 4 with birefringent plate 3, 3a,b of each pixel 1a of e.g. red display panel 3 is according to pixel arrangement including pixel 1a separation i.e. pitch, such that alternate shifting of pixel beam positions produces pixel arrangement after the shift, as depicted in Figs. 12,13,14, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]), thereby producing an effective increase of a spatial sampling density of an image formed by the red light by a factor n, where n is the number of distinct, parallel and non-coincident beam positions generated per pixel within a frame period, and n> 1 (i.e. as due to doubling or quadrupling of each pixel beam, e.g. by producing 2 or 4 parallel non-coincident beam positions of each pixel, and therefore displaying high-resolution image by optically shifting the pixel positions paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10-14).
Sugihara is not specific regarding that pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are both smaller than pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to adjust the relative pixel arrays sizes such that the red pixel array is a bit larger than blue and green pixel arrays in order to balance the colors of the display and to project and display a color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels (see Shinohara, paragraphs [09, 33, 49,56-57]), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that when there is only one group of pixel expansion apparatuses, the group of pixel expansion apparatuses is configured to perform first polarization on the red light at a first moment to obtain red light having ordinary-ray characteristics for the birefringent beam shifter (i.e. as one 4R, with birefringent plate 3 that shifts two different polarizations of 1R light from 2 driven by 5, alternately shifts light into ordinary and extraordinary beam of light passing birefringent plate 3 given the polarization state of light set by 2, see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33], e.g. Figs. 10,11, 1-2, 4);
and the expanded red light comprises the ordinary light and the extraordinary light (i.e. as light from 1R passed through 4 with 2, 3, as depicted in Fig. 11, 10, 1-2,4, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]; where it is noted that the limitations following the time-dependent and conditional term “when” are not positively recited and are treated as optional; see MPEP §2111.04, sec. I, §2142.03).
, and to perform second polarization on the red light at a second moment to obtain red light having extraordinary-ray characteristics for the birefringent beam shifter (i.e. as one 4R, with birefringent plate 3 that shifts two different polarizations of 1R light from 2 driven by 5, alternately shifts light into extraordinary beam of light passing birefringent plate 3 given the polarization state of light set by 2, see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33], e.g. Figs. 10,11, 1-2, 4); and the at least one group of pixel expansion apparatuses produces expanded red light (i.e. as light from 1R passed through 4 with 2, 3, expands red light into 2 or 4 red beams, as depicted in Fig. 11, 10, 1-2,4, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]), wherein the expanded red light comprises an ordinary beam that emerges along the undeviated propagation direction and an extraordinary beam that emerges parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by a distance d relative to the ordinary beam (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first and second polarization state light beams that are parallel and shifted e.g. as ordinary undeviated light beam and shifted extraordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], and see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that when there are two groups of pixel expansion apparatuses, the two groups of pixel expansion apparatuses are configured to perform first polarization on the red light at a first moment to obtain red light that is in a first polarized state, perform second polarization on the red light at a second moment to obtain red light that is in a second polarization state, perform third polarization on the red light at a third moment to obtain red light that is in a third polarization state, and perform fourth polarization on the red light at a fourth moment to obtain red light that is in a fourth polarization state (i.e. as 4, 4R, with two birefringent plates 3a, 3b, that each shifts two different polarizations of 1R light from 2a driven by 5a and 2b driven by 5b alternately, shifts light into ordinary and extraordinary beam of light passing birefringent each plate 3a, 3b, such that one 1a pixel is displayed as four pixels, see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33], e.g. Figs. 10,11, 1-2, 4); and the expanded red light comprises the red light that is in the first polarized state, the red light that is in the second polarized state, the red light that is in the third polarized state, and the red light that is in the fourth polarized state (i.e. as light from 1R passed through 4 with 2a,b , 3a,b, as depicted in Fig. 12, 10, 1-2,4, expanded with four polarized states, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]; where it is noted that the limitations following the time-dependent and conditional term “when” are not positively recited and are treated as optional; see MPEP §2111.04, sec. I, §2142.03).
Regarding claim 6, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that the polarization apparatus comprises two transparent electrodes and one liquid crystal molecular layer, and the liquid crystal molecular layer is disposed between the two transparent electrodes (i.e. as driven liquid crystal cell 2 with two transparent electrodes connected to driving source 5, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12); and when an electrical signal is applied to the transparent electrodes, liquid crystal molecules in the liquid crystal molecular layer rotate, to change incident red polarized light from the first polarization state to obtain the incident red polarized light in the second polarization state (as 2, (2a,b) rotates the polarization of light 1R by 90 degrees changing the incident polarization state e.g. vertical/horizontal to opposite, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that when the incident red polarized light is in the first polarization state, the birefringent beam shifter emits the ordinary beam along the undeviated propagation direction; (i.e. as given the light polarization of 1 entering 4 with 2, and 3, e.g. horizontal polarization, then 3 emits ordinary undeviated beam, as depicted in Figs. 11-12, 1-2, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]); and/or when the incident red polarized light is in the second polarization state, the birefringent beam shifter emits the extraordinary beam parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by the distance d relative to the ordinary beam. (i.e. as given the light polarization of 1 entering 4 with 2, and 3, as vertically polarized beam, then 3 emits extraordinary beam, laterally displaced and still parallel to ordinary beam, as clearly depicted in Figs. 11-12, 1-2, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]).
Regarding claim 8, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that an optical path length compensation device is disposed between the green light-emitting pixel array and the light- combining prism, and/or an optical path length compensation device is disposed between the blue light-emitting pixel array and the light-combining prism (i.e. as e.g. conversion means 22G or 22B, or alternatively 4G, 4R, disposed between 1G and 23 and/or 1B and 23, paragraphs [24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-4); and the optical path length compensation device is configured to adjust a length of an optical path of incident light, wherein the incident light comprises the green light and/or the blue light (i.e. as conversion 22G or 22B (4G, 4B) disposed between 1G and 23 and/or 1B and 23 adjust the light path at least to an extent, see paragraphs [24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that a distance between the blue light- emitting pixel array and the light-combining prism is changeable, and/or a distance between the green light-emitting pixel array and the light-combining prism is changeable (as distance between 1G, 1B and 23 is changed and set during the assembly, and distance changes depending whether 22G, 22B is disposed between or not, see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 4, 10; note that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding light-emitting array(s) and prism. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.).
Regarding claim 11, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) further comprising an optical engine lens, wherein the optical engine lens (25) is configured to receive the combined light emitted from the light-combining prism (23), magnify an image formed by the combined light, and project a magnified image (as projection lens 25 for projecting and displaying the combined image passed through 23, see paragraphs [24-33,47-55,56], Figs. 4, 10).
Regarding claim 17, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that the light-combining prism includes a red dichroic reflective coating and a blue/green dichroic reflective coating which are provided along bidirectional diagonals within the light-combining prism (i.e. as dichroic prism 23 with reflection surfaces 23R, 23G on bidirectional diagonals of the prism, Fis. 4, 10, paragraphs [31-32,54-55]).
Sugihara thus discloses the claimed invention except for the blue dichroic reflective coating is provided on one of the diagonals, i.e. instead of green (see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention reverse the light from green and blue pixel array such that blue light is reflected by added blue dichroic coating (instead of green dichroic coating) in order to balance the colors of the display and to project and display a color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels (see paragraphs [09, 33, 49,56-57]), and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167 (MPEP §2144.04, sec. VI).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara JP 2003185974 A (where attached English language machine translation is referenced) in view Brick et al. (hereafter Brick) US 20210080637 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that the red light-emitting pixel array comprises a self-emitting panel and a polarization selection device (i.e. as 1R with lighting device 21, and as liquid crystal display panner emits linearly polarized light or has added polarization plate, see paragraphs [24-33,47-55,56], Figs. 4, 10), or the red light- emitting pixel array comprises the self-emitting panel, a quantum dot material, and the polarization selection device, or the red light-emitting pixel array comprises the self-emitting panel and the quantum rod material (as noted above, see paragraphs [24-33,47-55,56], Figs. 4, 10). But Sugihara is silent that the self-emitting panel comprises a micron light-emitting diode panel or a micron organic light-emitting diode.
However, Brick teaches in the same field of invention of micro LED device and display (see figs. 2-5,13-20, 30-33, 41, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [11-32, 48-49, 57-70]) and further teaches that the self-emitting panel comprises a micron light-emitting diode panel or a micron organic light-emitting diode (i.e. as micro LED and micro LED array is used as light source in display device, suited for AR display, providing very high resolution, high directionality as high directional radiation, and a small radiation cone that avoids crosstalk of adjacent pixels, and overall small-sized arrangement, paragraphs [21, 27, 48-49,60-65]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the pixel array with lighting device of Sugihara with micron light-emitting diode panel according to teachings of Brick in order to provide very high resolution, high directionality as high directional radiation, and a small radiation cone that avoids crosstalk of adjacent pixels, and overall small-sized arrangement, (see Brick, paragraphs [21, 27, 48-49,60-65]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara JP 2003185974 A (where attached English language machine translation is referenced) in view of Itoh US 20110304827 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) that the light-combining prism includes a first surface corresponding to the red light-emitting pixel array, a second surface corresponding to the green light-emitting pixel array, and a third surface corresponding to the blue light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as 23 with surfaces towards 1R, 1G, and 1B, see paragraphs [24-33,47-55,56], Figs. 4, 10). Sugihara thus discloses the claimed invention except for that a size of the first surface of the light-combining prism is greater than a size of the red light- emitting pixel array, a size of the second surface of the light-combining prism is greater than a size of the green light-emitting pixel array, and a size of the third surface of the light-combining prism is greater than a size of the blue light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as surfaces of 23 facing 1R, 1G and 1B, respectively are about the same size as pixel arrays 1R, 1G, and 1B, paragraphs [24-33,47-55,56], Figs. 4, 10).
It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of choice to adjust the relative size of the light combining prism (23) of Sugihara to have the side surfaces size greater than the opposite facing red, green and blue pixel arrays surface size, as taught by Itoh (see detail in Fig. 1, as colored light combining optical system 7 prism has surface facing pixel arrays light valves 6 R,G,B that are larger than the size of the valves 6 R,G,B, paragraphs [22, 48-54]) thus providing that the size and the shape of the image transmitted do not change even if the position shift in the light axis direction is caused in the light modulation element or the polarization switching element, allowing accurate transmission of the image can be realized, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 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. The prior art does not disclose the structural limitations recited in claims 20 and 21 requiring only one pixel expansion apparatus for red light emitting pixel array. Regarding claim 22, while lower light-emitting efficiency for red light emitting pixel array of micro-LEDs of the same size as blue and green light emitting pixel arrays is known in prior art, there is no reasoning for modifying the structures of device for displaying image of Sugihara or similar display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 07/08/2026 regarding claim 1 and it’s dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 10-12 that the cited prior art of Sugihara does not disclose features of claim 1, namely that (1) “pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are both smaller than pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array” because this is not obvious matter of choice as it would allegedly not improve color balance, and as external quantum efficiency (EQE) or electro-optical conversion efficiency being the reason for different size of red pixel are not mentioned, and is not simple scaling of one component as other blue and green pixels would also need to be changed; and that the new limitations are not taught e.g. that (2) “the lateral displacement d is selected relative to a pixel pitch of the red light-emitting pixel array such that successive time-interlaced projected beams occupy distinct sampling positions within one pixel pitch, thereby producing an effective increase of a spatial sampling density of an image formed by the red light by a factor n, where n is the number of distinct, parallel and non-coincident beam positions generated per pixel within a frame period, and n> 1” because wobbling elements 4R, 4G, and 4B of Sugihara (each comprising a liquid crystal cell and birefringent plate) are applied across three color channels with and allegedly there is no teaching of selecting the displacement d with reference to the pixel pitch of a specific color channel that has been made deliberately larger than the other channels. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to issues (1) and (2), as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Sugihara teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Sugihara teaches (see Figs. 1-14) a projection display system (device for displaying image, see abstract, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-56], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 10-14) comprising:
a red light-emitting pixel array, a blue light-emitting pixel array, a green light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as liquid crystal display panel 1 with pixels 1a for each red 1R, green 1G and blue 1B, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 13), and
a light-combining prism (prism 23, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10), wherein the light-combining prism is disposed in optical paths of red light emitted by the red light-emitting pixel array, blue light emitted by the blue light-emitting pixel array, and green light emitted by the green light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as 23 is disposed in light paths of light from 1R, 1G, and 1B pixel arrays, see paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10), and is configured to combine the red light, the blue light, and the green light, and emit combined light along a same direction (i.e. as 23 combines light from 1R, 1G and 1B, and light from 4R, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. as depicted Figs. 4, 10); and
pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are as pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array (i.e. as pixel 1a dimensions of 1G and 1B are as pixel of 1R, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 13);
wherein at least one group of pixel expansion apparatuses is disposed between the red light-emitting pixel array and the light-combining prism (i.e. as 4 wobbling element 4R is disposed between 1R pixel array and prism 23, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10-12), and the at least one group of pixel expansion apparatuses (4, 4R) comprises:
a polarization apparatus (i.e. as 4R,as 4 has driven liquid crystal cell 2, 2a,b e.g. paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12) configured to alternately convert incident red polarized light between a first polarization state and a second polarization state in successive time intervals (i.e. as 2, (2a,b) is alternately driven (by 5, 5a,b driver) and rotates the polarization of light incident 1R light by 90 degrees alternately producing two different polarization states e.g. horizontal and vertical in successive time intervals, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12); and
a birefringent beam shifter comprising a transparent birefringent plate of predetermined thickness and optic-axis orientation (as beam shifter in the form of birefringent plate 3 (3a,b) with pre-determined thickness and optical axis, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12), configured, for the first polarization state, to emit an ordinary beam (0-ray) along an undeviated propagation direction (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first polarization along undeviated path as ordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]) and, for the second polarization state, to emit an extraordinary beam (e-ray) parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by a distance d relative to the ordinary beam (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes second polarization state light along shifted path e.g. as extraordinary light parallel to ordinary light , as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]); and
wherein the ordinary and extraordinary beams are parallel and non-coincident (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first and second polarization state light beams that are parallel and shifted e.g. as ordinary and shifted extraordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]), and the lateral displacement d is selected relative to a pixel pitch of the red light-emitting pixel array such that successive time-interlaced projected beams occupy distinct sampling positions within one pixel pitch (i.e. as the sifted amount by wobbling element 4 with birefringent plate 3, 3a,b of each pixel 1a of e.g. red display panel 3 is according to pixel arrangement including pixel 1a separation i.e. pitch, such that alternate shifting of pixel beam positions produces pixel arrangement after the shift, as depicted in Figs. 12,13,14, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]), thereby producing an effective increase of a spatial sampling density of an image formed by the red light by a factor n, where n is the number of distinct, parallel and non-coincident beam positions generated per pixel within a frame period, and n> 1 (i.e. as due to doubling or quadrupling of each pixel beam, e.g. by producing 2 or 4 parallel non-coincident beam positions of each pixel, and therefore displaying high-resolution image by optically shifting the pixel positions paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10-14).
Sugihara is not specific regarding that pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are both smaller than pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to adjust the relative pixel arrays sizes such that the red pixel array is a bit larger than blue and green pixel arrays in order to balance the colors of the display and to project and display a color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels (see Shinohara, paragraphs [09, 33, 49,56-57]), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04).
Specifically, as noted above and by the Applicant, the pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are as pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array, i.e. as pixel 1a dimensions of 1G and 1B are as pixel of 1R that are the same, paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 13). Hence, Sugihara is not specific regarding that pixel dimensions of the blue light-emitting pixel array and pixel dimensions of the green light-emitting pixel array are both smaller than pixel dimensions of the red light-emitting pixel array, or that the red pixels are larger than blue or green pixels. Non the less, it was noted that it would have been an obvious matter of choice to adjust the relative pixel arrays sizes such that the red pixel array is a bit larger than blue and green pixel arrays in order to balance the colors of the display and to project and display a color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels (see Shinohara, paragraphs [09, 33, 49,56-57]), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA (1976)(See MPEP 2144.04). Specifically, the reasons for size change was disclosed as adjusting the relative pixel arrays sizes such that the red pixel array is a bit larger than blue and green pixel arrays in order to balance the colors of the display and to project and display a color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels, which was noted in Shinohara, paragraphs [09, 33, 49,56-57]. Specifically, achieving balance in colors of the display is viewed as routine adjustment for displays in order to project and display the color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels, and one way to achieve this is to slightly adjust relative size of pixels of colors. Shinohara expressly discloses that numerous modifications or changes are possible, and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider such small modification to display the color image with good image quality without causing variations in the hue and brightness between the pixels (as noted), but certainty not to, as alleged to introduce geometric registration and optical alignment challenges that would complicate, not improve, color uniformity. Further, the claim language does not recite specific differences in size of the pixels, such as red pixels being twice the size of blue and green pixels, not does the claim language require size difference for specific EQE level or electro-optical conversion efficiency, which may differ over different materials and hetero-structures of particular micro-LEDs or other light sources. Lastly, the size change of red pixels is limited to red pixels in red pixel array, where the pixels are arranged with ample spacing/separation (or pitch) as depicted in Figs. 13-14. Small size change of red pixels does not involve changing the pixels of other display panels with blue 1B or green 1G pixels, as these are separate elements, not part of the proposed modification. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding issue (1) are not found persuasive.
Regarding issue (2), Sugihara expressly teaches the birefringent beam shifter comprising a transparent birefringent plate of predetermined thickness and optic-axis orientation, i.e. as beam shifter in the form of birefringent plate 3 (3a,b) with pre-determined thickness and optical axis, (see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], Figs. 1-2, 11-12) which is configured, for the first polarization state, to emit an ordinary beam (0-ray) along an undeviated propagation direction (i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first polarization along undeviated path as ordinary light, as clearly depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, (see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55]) and, for the second polarization state, to emit an extraordinary beam (e-ray) parallel to the ordinary beam and laterally displaced by a distance d relative to the ordinary beam, i.e. as the birefringent plate passes second polarization state light along shifted path e.g. as extraordinary light parallel to ordinary light , as clearly depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, for two light beam polarizations, one transmitting undeviated through 3 (3a,b) and other (perpendicular polarization beam) being laterally displaced, and where both ordinary and extraordinary beams are exiting 3 (3a,b) as parallel to one another,(paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], where it is also noted that such beam propagation of light having different orthogonal polarization states is a property of birefringent crystal plate, such as 3, 3a,b). Sugihara further teaches that the ordinary and extraordinary beams are parallel and non-coincident, i.e. as the birefringent plate passes first and second polarization state light beams that are parallel and shifted e.g. as ordinary and shifted extraordinary light, as depicted in Figs. 1,2, 11-12, see paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], and as explained above), and that the lateral displacement d is selected relative to a pixel pitch of the red light-emitting pixel array such that successive time-interlaced projected beams occupy distinct sampling positions within one pixel pitch, (i.e. as this is clearly visible since the shifted amount by wobbling element 4 with birefringent plate 3, 3a,b of each pixel 1a of e.g. red display panel 3 is according to pixel arrangement including pixel 1a separation i.e. pitch, such that alternate shifting of pixel beam positions produces pixel arrangement after the shift, which is clearly depicted in Figs. 12,13,14, paragraphs [3-6,16-23,24-33,47-55], where it is noted that the shift or displacement amount is half a pixel pitch or separation, that is clearly visible looking at Figs. 13 and 14, namely the shifted pixel alternately occupies distinct sampling position(s) within one pixel pitch, i.e. separation between two pixels), thereby producing an effective increase of a spatial sampling density of an image formed by the red light by a factor n, where n is the number of distinct, parallel and non-coincident beam positions generated per pixel within a frame period, and n> 1, i.e. as due to doubling or quadrupling of each pixel beam hence increasing spatial sampling density of the image, e.g. by producing 2 or 4 parallel non-coincident beam positions of each pixel, and therefore displaying high-resolution image by optically shifting the pixel positions paragraphs [3-6,16-19,24-33], e.g. Figs. 4, 10-14, where it is note that this limitation does not further limit a claim to a particular structure, as it simply expresses the intended result of the structures and its operation). Moreover, the noted structures of Sugihara apply to red pixel array, and the claim language does not restrict such structure to only red pixel array, as implied by the Applicant. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding issue (1) are not found persuasive.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 12 of the Remarks dated 07/08/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gorlachuk et al. US 20230369537 A1 and Di Feng CN 116931267 A disclose the lower light-emitting efficiency for red light emitting pixel array of micro-LEDs of the same size as blue and green light emitting pixel arrays but offer no reasoning for modifying the structures for such light-emitting efficiency.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights