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 .
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/02/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference Application Number 17/970,624 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “…relative to the different color light emitters in both horizontally adjacent pixels its vertically adjacent pixels in the array.” The Examiner is unclear what “horizontally adjacent pixels its vertically adjacent pixels” means. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the language to be “…relative to the different color light emitters in both horizontally adjacent pixels and vertically adjacent pixels in the array.”
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “…in the at least two adjacent pixels…”. However, this lacks proper antecedent basis as “at least two adjacent pixels” is not recited earlier in claim 4 or in claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “…in the at least two adjacent pixels…”. However, this lacks proper antecedent basis as “at least two adjacent pixels” is not recited earlier in claim 4 or in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “…in the at least two adjacent pixels…”. However, this lacks proper antecedent basis as “at least two adjacent pixels” is not recited earlier in claim 4 or in claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claims 12-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles”. However, this language is not attached to any specific structure recited in the claim language such that it is unclear which structure in the claim yields this function. MPEP 2173.05(G) recites “For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. Thus, the language is indefinite. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the structure recited in the remaining part of the claim as yielding the function of “providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles”. As such should the structural limitations in the claim be read upon or rendered obvious by the prior art, the function of “providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles” will also be considered by the Examiner to be read upon or obvious.
Claims 13-17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays”. However, this language is not attached to any specific structure recited in the claim language such that it is unclear which structure in the claim yields this function. MPEP 2173.05(G) recites “For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. Thus, the language is indefinite. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the structure recited in the remaining part of the claim as yielding the function of “providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays”. As such should the structural limitations in the claim be read upon or rendered obvious by the prior art, the function of “providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays” will also be considered by the Examiner to be read upon or obvious.
Claim 19 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 5 of Lan teaches a light-emitting device comprising an array of self-emitting pixels, wherein: each pixel of the array comprises the same plural different color light emitters (Items R, G and B); and the different color light emitters of each pixel of the array are arranged in a different orientation (Where R, G and B are rotated in different pixels [i.e. R is either in a bottom left or right position of the pixel depending on the pixel]) and different alignment (Where R, G and B are rotated in different pixels [i.e. R is aligned left to right across the page or up and down across the page depending on the pixel]) relative to the different color light emitters in both horizontally adjacent pixels and vertically adjacent pixels in the array.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 3 of Lan further teaches where each different color light emitter (Items R, G and B) in each pixel is a non-white emitter.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 3 of Lan teaches where the different color light emitters (Items R, B and G) are arranged in different orders in both its horizontally adjacent pixels and its vertically adjacent pixels.
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 3 of Lan teaches where the different color light emitters (Items R, G and B) are arranged in different orientations (Where R as an example is left right orientation in one pixel and up down orientation in an adjacent pixel) in both its horizontally adjacent pixels and its vertically adjacent pixels.
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 3 of Lan teaches where the different color light emitters (Items R, G and B) are arranged in different alignments (Where R as an example is in alignment in the left right direction in one pixel and in an up down alignment in an adjacent one; Also where a light emitter in a left right orientation in one pixel is offset from a left right orientation light emitter in an adjacent pixel in the up and down direction thus having a different alignment) in both its horizontally adjacent pixels and its vertically adjacent pixels.
Regarding claim 26, Fig. 3 of Lan further teaches where said emitters comprise OLEDs (Paragraph 0003).
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman”.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light-emitting device configured as a surface mount device providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles, said device comprising a 2x2 pixel micro- array with one row consisting of a first pixel (Item 110C) formed of an ordered sequence of a red LED (Item 112R), a green LED (Item 112G) and a blue LEDB) and a second pixel (Item 110W) formed of a single white LED, and with another row consisting of a first pixel formed of a single white LED and a second pixel formed of an ordered sequence of a blue LED, a green LED and a red LED (See Examiner’s Note).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the ordered sequence of the respective first pixel in the first row and second pixel of the another row are sequenced in the same direction. Therefore, Hochman’s teaching satisfies the sequence in the first row in a downward direction and satisfies the sequence in the second row in the upward direction.
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches where the micro array is surface mounted on a micro array substrate (Where the subpixels are directly mounted on a common substrate) and each said pixel has at least substantially equal total height and width.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light-emitting device configured as a surface mount device providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles, said device comprising a 2x2 pixel micro- array with one row consisting of a first pixel (Item 110C) formed of an ordered sequence of a red LED (Item 112R), a green LED (Item 112G) and a blue LEDB) and a second pixel (Item 110W) formed of a single white LED, and with another row consisting of a first pixel formed of a single white LED and a second pixel formed of an ordered sequence of a blue LED, a green LED and a red LED (See Examiner’s Note), wherein the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 1% - 20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the ordered sequence of the respective first pixel in the first row and second pixel of the another row are sequenced in the same direction. Therefore, Hochman’s teaching satisfies the sequence in the first row in a downward direction and satisfies the sequence in the second row in the upward direction.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches wherein the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 5% - 10% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said micro-array.
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light emitting tile comprising an array of light emitting surface mount devices according to claim 12 (See rejection of claim 12 above; For brevity the entirety of the rejection of claim 12 will not be repeated here), where each said micro-array further comprises a micro array substrate with the light emitters surfaced mounted thereon (Where light emitters are directly mounted on substrates which make up modules Items 80), and the micro array substrate are surface mounted in the array on a tile substrate (Where the modules are mounted onto respective tiles).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa”.
Regarding claim 3, Lan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the pixel array includes pixels comprising a white emitter and pixels comprising plural non- white color emitters; and each pixel having a white emitter is adjacent to not more than four other pixels in the array having a white emitter.
Fig 10A of Sugisawa teaches a display where each pixel includes a red subpixel (Item 110a), a green subpixel (Item 110b), a blue subpixel (Item 110c) and a white subpixel (Item 110d; Paragraph 0119),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pixel array includes pixels comprising a white emitter and pixels comprising plural non- white color emitters; and each pixel having a white emitter is adjacent to not more than four other pixels in the array having a white emitter because this allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa” and in further view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi”.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lan and Sugisawa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Lan does not teach where at least two said pixels each comprise said one white emitter and at least two said pixels each comprise said multi-color emitters forming a set of sub-pixels in an alternating arrangement within a 2x2 microarray.
Fig. 1 of Kikuchi teaches where a 2x2 micro array comprises four pixels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a 2x2 microarray having four pixels in each set of pixels because this is known to form a microarrays on a common printed circuit board (Kikuchi Paragraph 0077).
Fig. 19G of Sugisawa further teaches where one white emitter is associated with each set of red, green and blue emitters.
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two pixels each comprise one white emitter each and at least two pixels each comprise said multi-color emitters forming a set of sub-pixels because this configuration allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138).
Lan further teaches where pixels surrounding each pixel have different orientations and alignment (Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have forming a set of sub-pixels in an alternating arrangement because this allows for low-resolution display apparatuses (Lan paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lan, Sugisawa and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Lan does not teach where the white emitters comprises a white LED and the multicolor emitters comprise a combination of red, green and blue LEDs.
Fig. 19G of Suisawa teaches where a white emitter (Item 110d) comprises a white LED and multicolor emitters comprise a combination of red (Item 110a), green (Item 110b) and blue (Item 110c) LEDs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the white emitters comprises a white LED and the multicolor emitters comprise a combination of red, green and blue LEDs because this allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa”.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2A of Kikuchi teaches a light-emitting device configured as a surface mount device (Paragraph 0001) providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles (See the interpretation in the rejection of claim 12 above), said device comprising a 2x2 pixel micro-array with one row consisting of a first pixel (Item 21P1) formed of an ordered sequence (From top to bottom of the page direction) of a red LED (Item 20R), a green LED (Item 20G) and a blue LED (Item 20B) and a second pixel (Item 21P3) and with another row consisting of a first pixel (Item 21P4) formed of an ordered sequence (From bottom to top of the page direction) of a blue LED (Item 20B), a green LED (Item 20G) and a red LED (Item 20R) and a second pixel (Item 21P2).
Kikuchi does not teach where each of the second pixels of the one row and the another row are formed of a single white LED.
Fig. 19G of Sugisawa teaches where a unit grouping of LEDs consists of a red LED (Item 110a), a green LED (Item 110b), a blue LED (Item 110c) and a white LED (Item 110d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the second pixels of the one row and the another row formed of a single white LED because this allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun”.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 1 of Kikuchi teaches a light-emitting array (Item 10) providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays (See the interpretation in the rejection of claim 18 above), comprising an SMD (Item 12) having at least four pixel groups arranged in a 2x2 array where vertically adjacent pixel groups and horizontally adjacent pixel groups comprises plural individual light emitters (Items 20R, 20G and 20B).
Kikuchi does not teach where the plural individual light emitters positioned relatively differently with respect to one another such that off-axis color skews of the individual light emitters are dispersed between multiple viewing angles to reduce or eliminate cumulative off-axis color skew for said light-emitting display.
Sun teaches where pixels (Items P1 and P2) that are vertically and horizontally adjacent to each other in an array have plural individual light emitter positioned relatively differently with respect to one another (Where P1 has Items SP2, SP1 and SP3 in sequence and where P2 has Items SP3, SP2 and SP1 in sequence and where SP1 in each pixel is oriented in either a left or right orientation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plural individual light emitters positioned relatively differently with respect to one another because this configuration allows for an increase in aperture ratio while achieving high resolution (Sun Paragraph 0173).
While no explicit teaching in Sun is provided stating that the claimed configuration of the plural individual lights will result in off-axis color skews of the individual light emitters are dispersed between multiple viewing angles to reduce or eliminate cumulative off-axis color skew for said light-emitting display, as the claim offers no other structure for the resulting function of the device, the configuration taught by Sun is presumed to yield the claimed function.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi”.
Regarding claim 7, Lan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the array comprises a micro array of self-emitting pixels formed as a surface mount device.
Figs. 1 and 2A of Kikuchi teaches a light-emitting array (Item 10) comprising a micro array of self-emitting pixels (Item 21P1, 21P2, 21P3 and 21P4) formed as a surface mount device (Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the array comprise a micro array of self-emitting pixels formed as a surface mount device because this configuration is known to form a display device with multiple micro arrays on a common printed circuit board (Kikuchi Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lan and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Lan does not teach a micro array substrate with each said emitter being an LED surface mounted on the micro array substrate.
Figs. 1 and 2A of Kikuchi further teaches where emitters (Items 20R, 20G and 20B) are LEDs surface mounted (Paragraph 0010) on a micro array substrate (Item 112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a micro array substrate with each said emitter being an LED surface mounted on the micro array substrate because this is known to form a display device with multiple micro arrays on a common printed circuit board (Kikuchi Paragraph 0077).
Claim 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa” and in further view of Yamagishi et al. (US 2014/0374781) hereinafter “Yamagishi”.
Regarding claim 13, Kikichi further teaches where the micro array is surface mounted on a micro array substrate (where the micro array is an SMD).
The combination of Kikuchi and Sugisawa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each said pixel has at least substantially equal total height and width.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each said pixel have at least substantially equal total height and width because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 2A of Kikuchi teaches a light-emitting device configured as a surface mount device (Paragraph 0001) providing reduced off-axis color skew from specific viewing angles (See the interpretation in the rejection of claim 12 above), said device comprising a 2x2 pixel micro-array with one row consisting of a first pixel (Item 21P1) formed of an ordered sequence (From top to bottom of the page direction) of a red LED (Item 20R), a green LED (Item 20G) and a blue LED (Item 20B) and a second pixel (Item 21P3) and with another row consisting of a first pixel (Item 21P4) formed of an ordered sequence (From bottom to top of the page direction) of a blue LED (Item 20B), a green LED (Item 20G) and a red LED (Item 20R) and a second pixel (Item 21P2).
Kikuchi does not teach where each of the second pixels of the one row and the another row are formed of a single white LED.
Fig. 19G of Sugisawa teaches where a unit grouping of LEDs consists of a red LED (Item 110a), a green LED (Item 110b), a blue LED (Item 110c) and a white LED (Item 110d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the second pixels of the one row and the another row formed of a single white LED because this allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138).
The combination of Kikuchi and Sugisawa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 1%-20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 1%-20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kikuchi, Sugisawa and Yamagishi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the total heigh and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 5%-10% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said micro-array.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total heigh and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 5%-10% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said micro-array because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa” and in further view of Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kikuchi and Sugisawa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate.
Kikuchi further teaches where the LEDS are surfaced mounted on a micro array substrate.
Fig. 1 of Hochman2 teaches where a transparent cover (Item 124) covers any LEDS in an array (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate because the light transmissive encapsulation layer protects the emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate (Hochman2 Paragraph 0016).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2”.
Regarding claim 16, Hochman teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate.
Hochman further teaches where the LEDS are surfaced mounted on a micro array substrate.
Fig. 1 of Hochman2 teaches where a transparent cover (Item 124) covers any LEDS in an array (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate because the light transmissive encapsulation layer protects the emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate (Hochman2 Paragraph 0016).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun”.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light-emitting array (Item 120) providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays (See the interpretation in the rejection of claim 18 above), comprising an SMD having at least four pixel groups arranged in a 2x2 array where vertically adjacent pixel groups and horizontally adjacent pixel groups comprises plural individual light emitters (Items 112R, 112G and 112B).
Hochman does not teach where the plural individual light emitters positioned relatively differently with respect to one another such that off-axis color skews of the individual light emitters are dispersed between multiple viewing angles to reduce or eliminate cumulative off-axis color skew for said light-emitting display.
Sun teaches where pixels (Items P1 and P2) that are vertically and horizontally adjacent to each other in an array have plural individual light emitter positioned relatively differently with respect to one another (Where P1 has Items SP2, SP1 and SP3 in sequence and where P2 has Items SP3, SP2 and SP1 in sequence and where SP1 in each pixel is oriented in either a left or right orientation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plural individual light emitters positioned relatively differently with respect to one another because this configuration allows for an increase in aperture ratio while achieving high resolution (Sun Paragraph 0173).
While no explicit teaching in Sun is provided stating that the claimed configuration of the plural individual lights will result in off-axis color skews of the individual light emitters are dispersed between multiple viewing angles to reduce or eliminate cumulative off-axis color skew for said light-emitting display, as the claim offers no other structure for the resulting function of the device, the configuration taught by Sun is presumed to yield the claimed function.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2 of Hochman further teaches a video display tile comprising a plurality of light emitting arrays according to claim 18 (See rejection of claim 18 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 18 will not be repeated in its entirety) formed in a tile array.
While no explicit teaching in Hochman is provided stating that the claimed configuration of the plural individual lights will result in reduced off-axis color skew, nor where the tile array is configured to provide reduced or eliminated color skew when said video display tile is viewed at a specific angle, as the claim offers no other structure for the resulting function of the device, the configuration taught by Hochman is presumed to yield the claimed function.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi”.
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 1A of Sun a method of making a light-emitting device, comprising: configuring plural multi-color pixels (Items P1 and P2) in two different pixel arrangements, each multi-color pixel comprising plural different color emitters (Item SP1, SP2 and SP3), each different pixel arrangement varying from other pixel arrangements by emitter color order and color emitter orientation or color emitter alignment (Where SP1 in each of P1 and P2 is oriented in either a left or right orientation); and having an overall height and width; where each multi-color pixel has a different pixel arrangement from its horizontally adjacent and vertically adjacent multi-color pixels.
Sun does not teach surface mounting the multi-color pixels in a micro-array to a micro-array substrate.
Figs. 1 and 2A of Kikuchi teach a light-emitting array (Item 10) that is formed by surface mounting multicolored pixels (Item 21P1, 21P2, 21P3 and 21P4) in a micro array to a micro array substrate (Item 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surface mount the multi-color pixels in a micro-array to a micro-array substrate because this configuration is known to form a display device with multiple micro arrays on a common printed circuit board (Kikuchi Paragraph 0077).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and in further view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa”.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sun and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except configuring plural white emitters; and surface mounting the white emitters to the micro-array substrate adjacent the multicolor pixels to form a micro-array of alternating multi-color pixels and white pixels.
Fig 10A of Sugisawa teaches a display where each pixel includes a red subpixel (Item 110a), a green subpixel (Item 110b), a blue subpixel (Item 110c) and a white subpixel (Item 110d; Paragraph 0119),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure plural white emitters; and surface mount the white emitters to the micro-array substrate adjacent the multicolor pixels to form a micro-array of alternating multi-color pixels and white pixels because this allows the light emitting device to emit light of a desired color (Sugisawa Paragraph 0138).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and in further view of in view of Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2”.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Sun and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except encapsulating the emitters in a light transmissive protective layer after surface mounting the emitters to the micro array substrate.
Fig. 1 of Hochman2 teaches where a transparent cover (Item 124) covers any LEDS in an array (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encapsulate the emitters in a light transmissive protective layer after surface mounting the emitters to the micro array substrate because the light transmissive encapsulation layer protects the emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate (Hochman2 Paragraph 0016).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and in further view of in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0341656) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Sun and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the emitters are configured such that the micro array is no larger than 5 mm x 5 mm.
Chen teaches a large number of SMDs are arranged in rows and columns and where an SMD defines a pixel, and where each pixel may have a size of about 2.8 mm or less by 2.8 mm or less (Paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the emitters configured such that the micro array is no larger than 5 mm x 5 mm because this configuration allows for the SMD to be used in an LED screen (Chen Paragraph 0056).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0233969) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa” and in further view of Yamagishi et al. (US 2014/0374781) hereinafter “Yamagishi”.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Sun, Kikuchi and Sugisawa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each said multi-colro pixel has an overall height and width; and each said white emitter has an overall height and width substantially the same as the height and width of each said multi-color pixel.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each said multi-colro pixel has an overall height and width; and each said white emitter has an overall height and width substantially the same as the height and width of each said multi-color pixel because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and in further view of Yamagishi et al. (US 2014/0374781) hereinafter “Yamagishi”.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lan and Kikuchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 1%-20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total height and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 1%-20% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said array because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lan, Kikuchi and Yamagishi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the total heigh and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 5%-10% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said micro-array.
Fig. 1 of Yamagishi teaches where a white LED has the same total height and width as the total height and width of a combination of a red LED, a green LED and a blue LED.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total heigh and width of each pixel varies by not more than about 5%-10% of the total height and width of each other pixel in said micro-array because this allows for a white light to be emitted having a predetermined color temperature (Yamagishi Paragraph 0040).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2” and in further view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman”.
Regarding claim 29, Lan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except a light transmissive encapsulation layer over the emitters.
Fig. 1 of Hochman2 teaches where a transparent cover (Item 124) covers any LEDS in an array (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive encapsulation layer over emitters because the light transmissive encapsulation layer protects the emitters or LEDs mounted on an array substrate (Hochman2 Paragraph 0016).
Lan does not teach where the emitters are surface mounted on a micro array substrate.
Hochman teaches where emitters are surface mounted on a micro array substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the emitters mounted on a micro array substrate because this allows for large format displays (Hochman Abstract).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lan et al. (US 2020/0251534) hereinafter “Lan” in view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman”.
Regarding claim 30, Lan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Lan does not teach a light emitting tile comprising an array of light emitting surface mount devices according to claim 1.
Fig. 2 of Hochman teaches a light emitting tile comprising an array of light emitting surface mount devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the configuration of subpixels taught by Sun in the light emitting tile device of Hochman because the tile device of Hochman is capable of being used for large format display applications (Hochman Abstract).
Lan does not teach where each said micro array is surface mounted on a micro array substrate, and the micro array substrates are surface mounted in an array on a tile substrate.
Hochman teaches a micro array of subspixels is surface mounted on a micro array substrate (common substrate), and the micro array substrates are surface mounted in an array on a tile substrate (larger substrate which is a tile in the large format display).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each said micro array is surface mounted on a micro array substrate, and the micro array substrates are surface mounted in an array on a tile substrate because the tile device of Hochman is capable of being used for large format display applications (Hochman Abstract).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa” and Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2” and in further view of Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman”.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Kikuchi, Sugisawa and Hochman2 teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where each said encapsulated micro-array is separately surfaced mounted on a tile substrate to form said array of light-emitting surface mount devices with individually encapsulated a micro-arrays.
Hochman teaches where each micro array is separately surfaced mounted on a tile substrate to form an array of light emitting surface mount devices with individual microarrays.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each said encapsulated micro-array is separately surfaced mounted on a tile substrate to form said array of light-emitting surface mount devices with individually encapsulated a micro-arrays because the tile device of Hochman is capable of being used for large format display applications (Hochman Abstract).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0170454) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Sugisawa et al (US 2024/0407222) hereinafter “Sugisawa”, Hochman (US 2015/0116995) hereinafter “Hochman2” and Hochman et al. (US 10,325,541) hereinafter “Hochman” and in further view of Peil et al. (US 2013/0193592) hereinafter “Peil”.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Kikuchi, Sugisawa, Hochman2 and Hochman teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kikuchi does not teach where the encapsulation layer comprises one or more of silicone or epoxy resin potting compounds or conformal coatings.
Piel teaches where a transparent encapsulation for LEDs is silicone (Paragraph 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the encapsulation layer comprise silicone because cured silicone is known to protect the LEDs below it (Piel Paragraph 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach, suggest, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a micro- array substrate with each said multi-color emitters directly bonded thereto and a white emitter substrate with the white emitter directly bonded to the white emitter substrate, and wherein the white emitter substrate is directly bonded to the micro-array substrate along with the other limitations in claims 1 and 7 from which claim 10 depends.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not teach, suggest, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have said surface mounting the white emitters comprises first surface mounting the white LEDs to individual substrates and subsequently surface mounting the individual substrates with the white LEDs separately on the micro-array substrate along with the other limitations in claims 21 and 20 from which claim 22 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lan.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 with regard to claim 12 and specifically with regard to the Hochman reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Hochman does not disclose a packaged SMD component or that the depicted pixel groups are surface mounted rather than module level pixel assemblies. The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s conclusion that Hochman does not teach an SMD. Hochman teaches where subpixels are mounted in a 2x2 4x2 configuration to form display assemblies or modules. While Hochman does not explicitly use the words surface mount device to describe the modules there is nothing about Hochman’s modules that distinguishes them from surface mount devices, especially that of the Applicant’s. Further, besides stating that a surface mount device is not explicitly stated, the Applicant in their response has not pointed out any structural or functional differences between a surface mount device and the modules (surface mount devices) of Hochman. The Examiner continues to aver that the modules of Hochman are surface mount devices. They are groups of LEDs that are mounted on a common substrate in groupings of various sizes (one of which is 16 as shown in Fig. 2). That common substrate with the LEDs mounted (avered by the Examiner to be a surface mount device) are mounted on a further larger substrate which is a tile in a larger display. Just as a surface mount device of the Applicant’s or in the art, the modules of Hochman are individual so that they are removeable. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the modules of Hochman are surface mount devices. As such, the Examiner continues to rely on Hochman to teach that of claim 12 and its dependents.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 with regard to claims 8, 11 and 12 and specifically with regard to the Kikuchi and Sugisawa references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Kikuchi shows a four pixel OLED array on a substrate and not an SMD microarray. The Examiner disagrees. Kikuchi specifically states “a plurality of SMDs arranged on a substrate” in Paragraph 0075 of Kikuchi.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Sugisawa does not teach that a white pixel would be included in each pixel. The Examiner points to Fig. 19G and Paragraph 0467 of Sugisawa where a white subpixel is included along with a red, green and blue subpixel. The Examiner is unclear on why the Applicant argues that Sugisawa does not teach a white only subpixel along with red green and blue when Fig. 19G and Paragraph 0467 have the explicit teaching.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 with regard to the rejection of claims 12 and 18 under 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues at length that the preamble in not limiting when the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth al of the limitations of the claimed invention. As such, the Applicant seems to argue that the limitation in the preamble of claims 12 and 18 with respect to off-axis color are not limiting. However, later in their response (under the arguments against the rejections of claim 12 and 18 under 35 USC 103) the Applicant states that reading on the structural limitations in the body of the claim is not sufficient to read on the limitation in the preamble regarding the off-axis skew. In fact, the Applicant goes as far as stating that the presumption used by the Examiner, is improper as the Applicant avers that “a combination in support of a obviousness rejection must point to a specific structural arrangement that yields the claimed dispersion effect and provide a reason…” The Applicany’s argument is the basis of the Examiner’s 112(b) rejection. There is no specific structure in the body of the claim tied to the result of off-axis color correction and thus the Examiner takes the entirety of the structure recited in the body of the claim to result in the off axis color correction. Thus, if the claimed structure is read upon by the prior art it is understood that the color correction would result. Therefore, it is unclear whether the Applicant believes the preamble limitation to be limiting or not. In either case, as the preamble limitation regarding the off axis color correction is not tied to a specific structure recited in the body of the claim, the structure recited in the remaining part of the body of the claim will be interpreted by the Examiner as yielding the function of “providing off-axis color correction for video wall displays”. Should the Applicant have any specific structure not recited in the claim that results in the color correction, the Examiner encourages the Applicant to include it in the claim in an effort to overcome the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891