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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. (2020/0135977) in view of Akasaka (9,678,381).
Re claim 1, Leung et al. disclose at least 1,000 emitters ([0053]~ for a 4K light field display in which the pixels in a traditional display are replaced by the picture elements 225, the N x M array of picture elements 225can be 2,160x3,840 array including approximately 8.3 million picture elements 225; depending on the number of light emitting elements 220 {with integrated optical elements 205} in each of the picture elements 225, the 4K lightfield display can have a resolution that is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that of a corresponding traditional display) on a semiconductor die that produce light, the emitters arranged as an array of controllable pixels ([0053]~ when the picture elements or super-raxels 225 include as light emitting elements 220 multiple LEDs {e.g. multiple micro-LEDs} on a same semiconductor substrate that produce one or more colors of light, such as red (R) light, green (G) light, and blue (B) light, the 4K lightfield display can be said to be made from monolithically integrated RGB LED super-raxels); and at least 1,000 microlenses positioned to collect the light produced by the emitters ([0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region (e.g. an active region) of the light emitting element 220 to improve the optical properties of the light emitting element 220).
Leung et al. fails to disclose wherein the microlenses are overlapping but do not cover an entire area of the array of pixels.
Akasaka discloses wherein the microlenses are overlapping but do not cover an entire area of the array of pixels (note: see Fig. 4, overlap of microlenses ML and non-overlap in direction w; Col. 21, lines 36-46 ~ the microlenses ML1, ML2, ML3 and ML4 are provided such that micro lenses which are adjacent to one another in the X direction and the Y direction contact one another; the microlenses ML1, ML2, ML3 and ML4 are separated by the space between the micro lenses that are adjacent to one another in the W direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the overlapping and not overlapping microlenses of Akasaka with the micro display of Leung et al. to reduce the costs and simplify manufacturing (Akasaka- Col. 4, lines 22-27 ~ it is possible to provide an electronic apparatus with a bright display and excellent cost competitiveness, since the electronic apparatus is provided with the electro-optical device which can effectively reduce the influence of the diffraction of light, and which includes the micro lens array that can be manufactured easily).
Re claim 2, Akasaka further discloses wherein each microlens overlaps with its nearest neighbor microlenses (Fig. 4 overlap in x and y directions).
Re claim 3, Akasaka further discloses wherein each microlens overlaps only with its nearest neighbor microlenses (Fig. 4 overlap in x and y directions).
Re claim 4, Akasaka discloses wherein the microlenses cover between 79% and 95% of the area of the array (Fig. 4~ ratio of microlenses covered area to space in w direction between lenses- Col. 10, line 61- Col. 11, line 54).
Re claim 5, Leung et al. disclose wherein the emitters are arranged in a square array characterized by an emitter pitch (Fig. 2C square arrays and spacing)
Leung et al. fails to disclose wherein the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 1x and 1.2x the emitter pitch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 1x and 1.2x the emitter pitch in the microlenses to improve the light collection from each emitter, based on routine experimentation (Leung et al. [0121]). The optical element has a submicron size (e.g. diameter of the optical element is less than one micron). In some examples, a size, dimension or feature of the optical element (e.g. diameter) ranges from 100 nm to 100 microns and this range includes one or more subranges; [0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting element 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region (e.g. an active region) of the light emitting element 220 to improve the optical properties of the light emitting element 220).
Re claim 6, Leung et al. disclose wherein the emitters are arranged in a square array characterized by an emitter pitch (Fig. 2C square arrays and spacing)
Leung et al. fails to disclose wherein the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 0.5x and 0.6x the emitter pitch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 0.5x and 0.6x the emitter pitch in the microlenses to improve the light collection from each emitter, based on routine experimentation (Leung et al. [0121]). The optical element has a submicron size (e.g. diameter of the optical element is less than one micron). In some examples, a size, dimension or feature of the optical element (e.g. diameter) ranges from 100 nm to 100 microns and this range includes one or more subranges; [0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting element 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region (e.g. an active region) of the light emitting element 220 to improve the optical properties of the light emitting element 220).
Re claim 7, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited square array, width and acceptance angle through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device associated characteristics on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of square array, width and acceptance angle, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed square array, width and acceptance angle or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen square array, width and acceptance angle or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen square array, width and acceptance angle are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claims 8 and 9, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited percentage of area covered through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device associated characteristics on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of percentage of area covered, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed percentage of area covered or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen percentage of area covered or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen percentage of area covered is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 10, Leung et al. disclose wherein each emitter has a light-emitting area of not more than 10um2 ([0060]~ a size of each light emitting element 220 (e.g. a diameter, width, or span of the light emitting element or sub-raxel) can range from about 0.4 microns to about 4 microns).
Re claim 11, Leung et al. disclose wherein each emitter has a light-emitting area with a maximum width of not more than 3um ([0060]~ a size of each light emitting element 220 (e.g. a diameter, width, or span of the light emitting element or sub-raxel) can range from about 0.4 microns to about 4 microns).
Re claim 12, Leung et al. disclose wherein the total area of the array is not more than 25um2 per emitter ([0058]~ in a picture element 225 can range form about 10 microns to about 1,000 microns).
Re claim 13, Leung et al. disclose wherein each pixel has a maximum width of not more than 5µm ([0060]~ a size of each light emitting element 220 (e.g. a diameter, width, or span of the light emitting element or sub-raxel) can range from about 0.4 microns to about 4 microns).
Re claim 14, the combination fails to specifically disclose herein each microlens has a boost of at least 3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each microlens has a boost of at least 3 to improve or maintain the light output power and brightness through the microlenses based on routine experimentation (see Akasaka, col. 3, lines 43-54 {according to the configuration of this application example, it is possible to provide an electronic apparatus with a bright display and excellent cost competitiveness, since the electronic apparatus is provided with the electro-optical device which can effectively reduce the influence of the diffraction of light}).
Re claim 15, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited boost through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device associated characteristics on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of boost, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed boost or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen boost or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen boost is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 16, Leung et al. discloses wherein the microlenses have a spherical curvature (note: see shape of Fig. 3A, feature 320; [0068]- Fig. 3A shows a cross-sectional view of a structure (e.g. a layered structure) that illustrates a light emitting element or device (e.g. light emitting element 220) having a LED structure (e.g. LED structure 310) onto which there are integrated multiple optical elements (e.g. optical elements 320)).
Re claim 17, Akasaka further discloses wherein the microlenses includes microlenses of different curvatures (it is obvious that the microlenses of Fig. 13 would have different curvatures; col. 15, line 66 – col. 16, lines 1-3~ for the configuration of a micro array capable of reducing the influence of such diffracted light).
Re claim 18, Akasaka discloses wherein individual microlenses cover areas with curvilinear borders (see boundaries between microlens in Fig. 7).
Re claim 19, Akasaka discloses wherein the borders are linear where microlenses overlap and circular where microlenses are not overlapping (see boundaries between microlens and gaps in Fig. 7).
Re claim 20, Leung et al. discloses wherein different emitters produce visible light of different colors ([0053]~ when the picture elements or super-raxels 225 include as light emitting elements 220 multiple LEDs {e.g. multiple micro-LEDs} on a same semiconductor substrate that produce one or more colors of light such as red (R) light, green (G) light and blue (B) light).
Re claim 21, Leung et al. discloses wherein the emitters are arranged into an array of color pixels, with a same pattern of different color emitters within each color pixel (Fig. 2C, [0043]~ where the light emitting elements 220 can include different LEDs on a same semiconductor substrate that produce one or more colors of light such as red (R) light, green (G) light and blue (B) light).
Re claim 22, Leung et al. disclose wherein the pattern of different color emitters within each color pixel is a non-rectangular pattern ([0048] Moreover, while the light emitting elements 220have been shown as square shaped elements, this is for purposes of illustration and they can have different shaped areas suitable for manufacturing and/or increased packing, including hexagonal shaped areas, for example. Similarly, while the optical elements 205 have been shown as circle shaped elements, this is for purposed of illustration and they can have different shaped areas suitable to provide the proper optical effects, including oval shaped areas, for example).
Re claim 24, Leung et al. disclose wherein microlenses of different designs are used to collect light from different color emitters ([0100]~ an optical element 1420a {which may be an example of the optical elements 205 and 320 described above} is larger than an optical element 1420b {which may also be an example of the optical elements 205 and 320 described above}. In one implementation, the optical element 1420a may be integrated with two or more LED structures and the optical element 1420b may be integrated with a single LED structure).
Re claim 25, the combination does not disclose wherein microlenses of different curvature are used to collect light from different color emitters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use microlenses of different curvature to collect light from different color emitters to improve the color perception for both near and far observations of the display, based on routine experimentation (see Leung et al. [0100]~ the optical element 1420b may be then used to steer the light generated by its corresponding LED structure onto the entire light steering optical element 215. This approach may provide a scheme to support high resolution from a viewer’s perspective at both near and far projections of the light).
Re claim 26, Leung et al. discloses wherein the emitters include GaN micro-LEDs ([0068]~ both the optical elements 320 and the LED structure 310 can be made of a material that includes GaN (e.g. GaN-based semiconductor material)).
Re claim 27, Leung et al. disclose a plurality of micro-LED emitters on a semiconductor die ([0053]~ when the picture elements or super-raxels 225 include as light emitting elements 220 multiple LEDs (e.g. multiple micro-LEDs) on a same semiconductor substrate that produce one or more colors of light, such as red, green and blue lights, the 4K lightfield display can be said to be made from monolithically integrated RGB LED super-raxels) that produce visible light of different colors, the micro-LED emitters arranged into an array of controllable color pixels ([0053]~ when the picture elements or super-raxels 225 include as light emitting elements 220 multiple LEDs (e.g. multiple micro-LEDs) on a same semiconductor substrate that produce one or more colors of light, such as redlight, green light and blue light, the 4K lightfield display can be said to be made from monolithically integrated RGV LED super-raxels); microlenses ([0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting element 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region (e.g. an active region) of the light emitting element 220 to improve the optical properties of the light emitting element 220), wherein there is a one-to-one correspondence between microlenses and micro-LED emitters ([0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting element 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region), each microlens is positioned to collect the visible light produced by the corresponding micro-LED emitter ([0040]~ an optical element 205 is integrated (e.g. monolithically integrated) into each corresponding light emitting element 220 to provide a curved shaped surface that aligns with a light emitting region (e.g. an active region) of the light emitting element 220 to improve the optical properties of the light emitting element 220).
Leung et al. fails to disclose a transparent spacer layer positioned above the micro-LED emitters; and a set of spherical microlenses supported by the spacer, and the microlenses are overlapping but do not cover an entire area of the array of color pixels.
Akasaka discloses a transparent spacer layer (11) positioned above the micro-LED emitters (Fig. 3); and a set of spherical microlenses supported by the spacer layer (the light which is emitted from a light source or the like, enters from the opposing substrate 30, which is provided with the micro lenses ML1 and ML2, (the substrate 11) side and is condensed by the micro lenses ML1 and ML2), and the microlenses are overlapping but do not cover an entire area of the array of color pixels (Fig. 4~ overlap of microlenses ML and non-overlap in direction w; Col. 21, lines 36-46 – the microlenses ML1, ML2, ML3 and ML4 are provided such that micro lenses which are adjacent to one another in the X direction and the Y direction contact one another. The micro lenses ML1, ML2, ML3 and ML4 are separated by the space between the micro lenses that are adjacent to one another in the W direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the overlapping and not overlapping microlenses of Akasaka with the microdisplay of Leung et al. to reduce the costs and simplify manufacturing (Akasaka~ Col. 4, lines 22-27- it is possible to provide an electronic apparatus with a bright display and excellent cost competitiveness, since the electronic apparatus is provided with the electro-optical device which can effectively reduce the influence of the diffraction of light, and which includes the micro lens array that can be manufactured easily).
Re claim 28, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device associated characteristics on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 29, the combination fails to disclose further comprising: driver circuitry that controls a brightness and color of the color pixels. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a driver circuitry that controls a brightness and color of the color pixels based on routine experimentation, since Leung et al. invention involves the control of LEDs which are implicitly controlled by some form of circuitry and is also used to activate raxel and control color.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. in view of Akasaka as applied to claims 1-22 and 24-29 above, and further in view of Brick et al. (2021/0080637).
The combination does not disclose wherein a plurality of the emitters include color conversion materials.
Brick et al. disclose wherein a plurality of the emitters include color conversion materials ([0352]~ light generation at the subpixels is realized with LEDs, preferably micro-LEDs, which emit blue or ultraviolet light that is converted into light with the required color with the aid of suitable converter elements or suitable converter material).
It would have been obvious too ne of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color converting material of Brick et al. with the microdisplay of the combination to improve the display uniformity (see Brick et al. [0414]- with different dimensions; If the current through the pixels remains constant, there is a different brightness of the color, so that the user has the impression of equally bright colors at the respective location).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2019/0121002 A1 discloses a similar configuration for a micro display device with emitters and microlenses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights