Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 07/20/2026. Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Danziger (US 2024/0098230) does not disclose “optics to receive a majority of the light from the light source, without an aperture, and to direct the light,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Danziger explicitly discloses an embodiment in which the illumination stop 6 with an aperture shown in figure 2 is replaced with reflective arrangement 16 shown in figures 3 and 4. This embodiment allows the light 4 from mLEDa 2, including high angle light, to be collected at 60% efficiency. (Figs. 3, 4, [0034], [0035])
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1-3, 8-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Danziger (US 2024/0098230).
Consider claim 1, Danziger clearly teaches a display system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a segmented light source including a plurality of separately controlled segments to emit light; (LED array 2 includes a plurality of separately-controllable LEDs, [0023], [0030].)
optics to receive a majority of the light from the light source, without an aperture, and to direct the light; (Figs. 3, 4: Reflective arrangement 16 does not include an aperture and collects light from mLEDa 2 at 60% efficiency, [0030]-[0035].)
a spatial light modulator (SLM) to modulate the light; (Spatial light modulator (SLM) 10, [0021], [0030])
the light from one or more of the plurality of segments from the segmented light source are directed to the SLM through the optics, such that spatial mapping from the segments to the SLM is maintained. (Selective illumination of the LED array generates selective illumination of different regions of the SLM allowing selective illumination of regions of the SLM where image content is to be generated while conserving energy by not illuminating regions where no image is being displayed, [0023].)
Consider claim 2, Danziger clearly teaches the segmented light source comprises an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs). (LED array 2, [0023]-[0026])
Consider claim 3, Danziger clearly teaches the array comprises a single color. (LED array 2 transmits white light, [0026])
Consider claim 8, Danziger clearly teaches the optics comprise one or more of: reflective lenses, (The light is reflected by PBS 9 onto the SLM 10, [0028].) refractive lenses, (Collimating reflective lens 12 includes refractive components, [0028].) and freeform lenses including reflective and refractive surfaces.
Consider claim 9, Danziger clearly teaches the optics comprise microlenses, the microlenses corresponding to segments of the segmented light source. (Fig. 3: Exit 18 from the reflective arrangement may advantageously be provided with a micro-lens array, [0034].)
Consider claim 10, Danziger clearly teaches each of the separately controlled segments correspond to a display zone, the system further comprising: a controller to identify one or more display zones in an image that do not have an image component, and to turn off corresponding one or more of the separately controlled segments of the light source. (LED array 2 performs selective illumination of regions of the SLM 10 where image content is to be generated while not illuminating regions where no image is being displayed, [0023].)
Consider claim 11, Danziger clearly teaches the controller to identify a brightness of the image in each display zone, and to set an illumination level for each of the separately controlled segments of the light source based on the brightness. (Fig. 3: Controller 36 actuates LED array 2 according to the required illumination levels based on pixel data for the image, [0041]-[0047].)
Consider claim 12, Danziger clearly teaches the brightness and the illumination level are set for each color. (The pixels of LED array 2 can be colors, [0026].)
Consider claim 14, Danziger clearly teaches the optics are double pass optics, such that the light passes through the optics to the SLM, and modulated light from the SLM passes through the optics prior to being displayed to a user. (Fig. 2: Light from LED array 2 passes through PBS 9 onto SLM 10 then back through PBS 9 to projection optics 12 to exit pupil 14, [0028].)
Consider claim 15, Danziger clearly teaches a system for selective illumination of a spatial light modulator (Fig. 2) comprising:
a light engine (Fig. 2) comprising:
a segmented light source including a plurality of separately controlled segments to emit light, the plurality of separately controlled segments corresponding to display zones; (LED array 2 includes a plurality of separately-controllable LEDs corresponding to regions of the SLM 10, [0023], [0030].)
double pass optics (Fig. 2: Light from LED array 2 passes through PBS 9 onto SLM 10 then back through PBS 9 to projection optics 12 to exit pupil 14, [0028].) to directly receive a majority of the light from the segmented light source, without an aperture, and direct the light to a spatial light modulator; (Figs. 3, 4: Reflective arrangement 16 does not include an aperture and collects light from mLEDa 2 at 60% efficiency, [0030]-[0035].)
the spatial light modulator (SLM) to modulate the light; (Spatial light modulator (SLM) 10, [0021], [0030])
the light from one or more of the plurality of segments from the segmented light source are directed to the SLM through the double pass optics, such that spatial mapping from the segments to the SLM is maintained, and modulated light from the SLM passing through the double pass optics prior to being output as an image. (Selective illumination of the LED array generates selective illumination of different regions of the SLM allowing selective illumination of regions of the SLM where image content is to be generated while conserving energy by not illuminating regions where no image is being displayed, [0023].)
Consider claim 16, Danziger clearly teaches a processing system to analyze content of the image for display and provide the display zone information to the light engine to control the segmented light source, the display zone information indicating light settings for the display zones within the image based on the content of the image. (Fig. 3: Controller 36 actuates LED array 2 according to the required illumination levels based on pixel data for the image, [0041]-[0047].)
Consider claim 17, Danziger clearly teaches one or more of the display zones are turned off. (Regions where no image is displayed are not illuminated, [0023].)
Consider claim 18, Danziger clearly teaches a brightness in one or more of the display zones is set based on a content of the image. (Fig. 3: Controller 36 actuates LED array 2 according to the required illumination levels based on pixel data for the image, [0041]-[0047].)
Consider claim 19, Danziger clearly teaches a method of selectively illuminating a spatial light modulator (SLM) to output an image, (Fig. 2) the method comprising:
controlling a segmented light source including a plurality of separately controlled segments to emit light; (LED array 2 includes a plurality of separately-controllable LEDs corresponding to regions of the SLM 10, [0023], [0030].)
directing the light through optics from the segmented light source without an intervening aperture; (Figs. 3, 4: Reflective arrangement 16 does not include an aperture and collects light from mLEDa 2 at 60% efficiency, [0030]-[0035].)
modulating the light by the spatial light modulator (SLM); (Spatial light modulator (SLM) 10, [0021], [0030])
wherein the light from one or more of the plurality of segments from the segmented light source are directed to the SLM through the optics, such that spatial mapping from the segments to the SLM is maintained. (Selective illumination of the LED array generates selective illumination of different regions of the SLM allowing selective illumination of regions of the SLM where image content is to be generated while conserving energy by not illuminating regions where no image is being displayed, [0023].)
Consider claim 20, Danziger clearly teaches the segmented light source comprises an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs). (LED array 2, [0023]-[0026])
Consider claim 21, Danziger clearly teaches each of the separately controlled segments correspond to a display zone, the method further comprising: identifying one or more display zones in an image that do not have an image component; and turning off corresponding one or more of the separately controlled segments of the light source. (LED array 2 performs selective illumination of regions of the SLM 10 where image content is to be generated while not illuminating regions where no image is being displayed, [0023].)
Consider claim 22, Danziger clearly teaches identifying brightness of the image in each display zone; and setting an illumination level for each of the separately controlled segments of the light source based on the brightness. (Fig. 3: Controller 36 actuates LED array 2 according to the required illumination levels based on pixel data for the image, [0041]-[0047].)
Consider claim 23, Danziger clearly teaches the brightness and the illumination level are set for each color. (The pixels of LED array 2 can be colors, [0026].)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger (US 2024/0098230) in view of Richards (US 2014/0002514).
Consider claim 4, Danziger clearly teaches the array.
However, Danziger does not explicitly teach a red color array, a green color array, and a blue color array, and associated optics for each of the arrays.
In an analogous art, Richards, which discloses an imaging system, clearly teaches a red color array, a green color array, and a blue color array, and associated optics for each of the arrays. (Fig. 7: Banks 705R, 705G, 705B are associated with individual spreaders 710R, 710G, 710B, [0058].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Danziger by a red color array, a green color array, and a blue color array, and associated optics for each of the arrays, as taught by Richards, to achieve the predictable result of providing light to the imaging system.
Consider claim 13, Danziger clearly teaches each of the separately controlled segments correspond to a display zone.
However, Danziger does not explicitly teach a blender to apply blending at edges between the display zones.
In an analogous art, Richards, which discloses an imaging system, clearly teaches a blender to apply blending at edges between the display zones. (Figs. 4, 5: Illumination areas are mixed at the overlapping edges of adjacent illumination areas by spreader 410, [0042]-[0049].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Danziger by a blender to apply blending at edges between the display zones, as taught by Richards, to achieve the predictable result of providing light to the imaging system.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger (US 2024/0098230) in view of Brick et al. (US 2021/0405276), herein Brick.
Consider claim 5, Danziger clearly teaches the array.
However, Danziger does not explicitly teach the array comprises red LEDs, green LEDs, and blue LEDs.
In an analogous art, Brick, which discloses an imaging system, clearly teaches the array comprises red LEDs, green LEDs, and blue LEDs. (Fig. 18: Lighting device 1 includes red, green, and blue LEDs, [0292].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Danziger by the array comprises red LEDs, green LEDs, and blue LEDs, as taught by Brick, to achieve the predictable result of providing light to the imaging system.
Consider claim 6, Danziger combined with Brick clearly teaches different colored LEDs are different sizes. (Fig. 18: LEDs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 are different sizes, [0293].)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger (US 2024/0098230) in view of Chong et al. (US 2018/0132330), herein Chong.
Consider claim 7, Danziger clearly teaches the segmented light source.
However, Danziger does not explicitly teach monolithic segmented light emitting diode (LED).
In an analogous art, Chong, which discloses an imaging system, clearly teaches monolithic segmented light emitting diode (LED). (Fig. 2A: Multiple arrays of different color micro-LEDs 220 monolithically integrated on the substrate 205, [0029].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Danziger by monolithic segmented light emitting diode (LED), as taught by Chong, to achieve the predictable result of providing light to the imaging system.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights