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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II, including claim(s) 10-18 in Application No. 18,651997, filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
(L) Claims 1-9 are generic
(ii) Examiner has not shown serious burden son one does not exist.
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed Group I recites : wherein the micro-LED is a side-emitting micro- LED; wherein the micro-reflector has a height (H) above an upper surface of the substrate that is less than or equal to about 50 microns; and wherein a distance (d) between the micro-LED and the micro- reflector is less than or equal to about 0.5 mm,. Group II does not mention height or distance and one could not readily conceive this parameters from claim language of Group II. Group II recites a first backside, and a plurality of recessed volumes. Group II is geared toward rear portions of the recess volumes and backside laminations. Group Il does not mention rear portions of the recess volumes nor backside laminations and one could not readily conceive this parameters from claim language of Group I.
There being no linking nor Generic claims.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a)the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; Claims 1-9 and 19-20 remain withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 20230003985 A1) (Woodgate, hereafter) in view of Harrold et al. (US 20200258867 A1) (Harrold, hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, Woodgate (Figures 1-20 and corresponding text) discloses a micro-Light Emitting Diode (micro-LED) display comprising: a substrate(93)(π101), comprising a frontside (106), a backside (102), and a plurality of micro-LEDs (3 or5)disposed on the frontside(106) of the substrate(93); a first sheet of a first transparent material,(π91) comprising a first frontside, a first backside, and a plurality of recessed (38)volumes; a reflective coating (46) disposed on a rear portion of each respective one of the plurality of recessed volumes (38); and wherein each recessed volume (38) comprises a respective one of the plurality of micro-LEDs (3). Woodgate fails to explicitly discloses wherein a second sheet of a second transparent material that is bonded and laminated to the backside of the substrate; The applicant is claiming the product of a second transparent material attached to the backside of the substrate including a method (i.e. a process) of making bonding and laminating, consequently, this portion of the claim is considered “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Furthermore, it is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation. Consequently, absent a showing of an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, the subject product-by-process claim limitation is not afforded patentable weight (see MPEP 2113). As such the claim will be interpreted Woodgate fails to explicitly discloses “wherein a second sheet of a second transparent material attached to backside of substrate”.
Harrold discloses display apparatus; a first sheet of a first transparent material,(38) comprising a first frontside, a first backside, and a plurality of recessed volumes (38a); a reflective coating disposed on a rear portion of each respective one of the plurality of recessed volumes; and a second sheet of a second transparent material( 304) (transparent support) substrate on the backside of the substate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the laminated, micro-Light Emitting Diode (micro-LED) display of Woodgate as disclosed by Harrold wherein a second sheet of a second transparent material attached to backside of substrate” the motivation being ton ensure a high degree of luminance efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Woodgate (figure 1a) wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes(38) has a triangular, semi-circular, or oval cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 12, Woodgate (figure 1a), wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has a curved, triangular, cross-sectional shape with two curved sidewalls.
Regarding claims 13-15, the limitations wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has a trapezoidal or inverted trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (claim 13);wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has an inverted cross-sectional parabolic shape (claim 14);wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has a concave reflecting surface and a convex opposing surface (claim 15) etc do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the laminated, micro-Light Emitting Diode (micro-LED) display of Woodgate based on the disclosure of Woodgate wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has a trapezoidal or inverted trapezoidal cross-sectional shape; wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has an inverted cross-sectional parabolic shape; wherein each respective one of the recessed volumes has a concave reflecting surface and a convex opposing surface the motivation being o achieve broad area illumination effects with high luminance efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Woodgate further discloses wherein the laminated micro-LED display is integrated into a window, windshield, and/or mirror of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is selected from the group consisting of automobiles, trucks, bicycles, motorcycles, farm equipment, construction equipment, boats, trains, and airplanes (π007-π008).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 20230003985 A1) (Woodgate, hereafter) in view of Harrold et al. (US 20200258867 A1) (Harrold, hereafter) in view of Mouron et al. (US 20190146216 A1) (Mouron, hereafter).
Regarding claim 17, Woodgate as modified by Harrold disclose the laminated micro-LED display (see rejection claim 16). Woodgate as modified by Harrold fail to explicitly disclose wherein the laminated, micro-LED display is integrated as a Heads-Up Display (HUD) in a front windshield of an automobile.
Mouron discloses (Figure 1) Front windshield unit with integral dual-sided, laminated-glass transparent display device 18 (also referred to as “front windshield unit” or “electronic display device” for brevity) may be configured as an Enhanced Vision System (EVS) that is operable to dynamically display and dynamically update graphical images upon a window of a subject vehicle to present vehicle-related and non-vehicle-related information of various forms, including vehicle systems operation, ambient driving conditions, infotainment features, personalized occupant-specific data, etc. In accord with the illustrated example, the front windshield unit 18 is sealingly fastened, e.g., via a bonding agent and a window gasket or polymeric weather stripping (not shown), to the front window frame 16. A lower edge of the front window frame 16 is delineated by a dash panel cowl 20, whereas an upper edge is delineated by a roof rail 22, and the two lateral edges are delineated by a pair of A-pillars 24 (only one of which is visible; a second mirrored counterpart is located on the opposite side of the window frame 16). Also present within the vehicle passenger compartment 14 is a center stack 26 that is equipped with a human-machine interface (HMI) in the form of an electronic touchscreen video display 28 and a button panel 30. Touchscreen video display 28 is operable to receive user inputs and display image, text, and video-based content. A digital instrument panel (IP) 32, which is housed within a front dashboard 34 forward of a steering wheel 36, displays gauges, instrumentation, and controls for monitoring and regulating selected operations of the vehicle 10 (π17-π18)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the laminated, micro-Light Emitting Diode (micro-LED) display of Woodgate as disclosed by Mouron wherein the laminated, micro-LED display is integrated as a Heads-Up Display (HUD) in a front windshield of an automobile. The motivation being To help increase driver awareness of vehicle systems operation and ambient driving conditions.
6 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 20230003985 A1) (Woodgate, hereafter) in view of Harrold et al. (US 20200258867 A1) (Harrold, hereafter) in view of Veerasamy (US 20140098557 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Woodgate as modified by Harrold disclose the laminated micro-LED display (see rejection claim 16). Woodgate as modified by Harrold fail to explicitly disclose is configured as a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) disposed in a rear windshield of an automobile.
Veersamy discloses in figures 3-5 several configurations for CHMSL. the example CHMSL shown in FIG. 3 can be fabricated in a number of different ways. For instance, FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating one example technique for forming a CHMSL in accordance with an example embodiment. The material typically used for the polymer-inclusive interlayer in windshields (e.g., PVB, EVA, or the like) can be cut transversely in a potentially stepped or terraced manner, giving rise to two pieces of that material with jagged and matching faces (step S402). As an alternative, producing the multi-stepped wedge of PVB or other laminating material may be accomplished by extruding or other techniques, although this may be difficult to accomplish in connection with a molten polymer. A flexible circuit supporting micro-LEDs will be affixed to one of the pieces such that it conforms to the terraced surfaces (step S404). The flexible circuit may be booked between the two mating sheets (step S406). This sub-assembly may be laminated between two glass sheets (step S408).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the laminated, micro-Light Emitting Diode (micro-LED) display of Woodgate as disclosed by Veersamy wherein configured as a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) disposed in a rear windshield of an automobile the motivation being to improve luminous efficacy, CRI matching, and lifetimes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the 892 and below:
US 20200049876 A1-State of the art- light guide plate, a planar light source apparatus, a display apparatus, and an electronic device
KR 101824036 B1-Read on some aspects of claim 1- The backlight unit includes a light guide plate having grooves
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
TRACIE Y. GREEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights