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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see below).
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.
Claim1 – 13 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari (US Pub. No. 2006/0077126 A1) in view of Schwarz et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0155564 A1).
As to claims 1 and 33, Kothari shows an optoelectronic system (i.e. display array, Figs. 1, 8, 11A and 11 B and paras. 28, 29 and 81), and associated methodology comprising: connecting an array of tiles (i.e. modulator displays, Figs. 1, 11A and 11B and paras. 29 and 74) wherein each tile has a substrate 20 and an array of pixels (i.e. 12a and 12b, Fig. 1 and paras. 29 – 31); distributing signals between pixels in row and column direction (via electrical connection device 125, Fig. 11A and para. 78) wherein each signal is connected to two pads on the opposite sides of the tile substrate (Figs. 1 and 11A and para. 78); and connecting pads 625 between adjacent tiles by forming traces 616 (Fig. 8 and paras. 56 – 58).
Kothari does not show that the traces directly bridge the pads together.
Schwarz shows that traces directly bridge adjacent modular display pads together (Figs. 21 and 22 and para. 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Kothari with those of Schwarz because designing the system in this way allows the device to more efficiently utilize the surface area of the display and also to provide uniform brightness (paras. 105 and 106).
As to claim 2, Kothari shows that the tiles are assembled on a system substrate (i.e. backplate, for example, Fig. 11B and para. 86).
As to claim 3, Kothari shows that the traces connect the pads of adjacent tiles through traces in the system substrate (Figs. 11A and 11B).
As to claim 4, Kothari shows that the traces connect the tiles to the signals through traces on the system substrate (Figs. 11A and 11B).
As to claim 5, Kothari shows that a bezel in the tile is reduced by moving the pads into a pixel area (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 6, Kothari shows that a circuit in pixels with pads is moved away from the pads towards an opposite direction (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 7, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a left side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a right hand side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 8, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a right side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a left hand side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 9, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a top side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a bottom side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 10, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a bottom side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a top side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86).
As to claim 11, Kothari shows that for pixels at corners, corresponding circuits are moved towards the opposite direction away from the corners (Figs. 11A and 11B).
As to claim 12, Kothari shows that a position of microdevices in the pixel area is adjusted to be substantially in the center of the pixel area so that the position of microdevices across the array is consistent (Fig. 11A).
As to claim 13, Kothari shows that to increase a tolerance of an image quality or captured data to the position of microdevices, a reflector 16a/16b is added under the microdevice that is larger than the microdevice area (Fig. 1 and paras. 29 – 32).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights