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 statements (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2024, 10/27/2025, 4/3/2026, and 8/19/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract and title are consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b) and 606, respectively.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end surfaces of the circuit branches" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of end surfaces of the circuit branches. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation is being interpreted as "a width of the circuit branches is equal to or less than a width of an X-cube." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 16 recite the limitation "the center axis of the second circuit branch" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a center axis of the second circuit branch. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation is being interpreted as "a center axis of the second circuit branch." Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6 and 19 recite the limitation "the width of the first circuit branch, the width of the second circuit branch, and the width of the third circuit branch" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a width of any of the circuit branches. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation is being interpreted as "a width of the first circuit branch, a width of the second circuit branch, and a width of the third circuit branch." Appropriate correction is required. Claims 9 and 22 recite the limitation "the bottom edge of the micro LED panel in one of the circuit branches is not lower than the side edge of the other circuit branches" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of a bottom edge of the micro LED panel and a side edge another one of the circuit branches. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation is being interpreted as "a bottom edge of the micro LED panel in one of the circuit branches is not lower than a side edge of another one of the circuit branches." Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the end surfaces of the circuit branches" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous mention of end surfaces of the circuit branches. For examination purposes and for proper antecedence, the limitation is being interpreted as "a top of the micro LED panels." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for further limiting and depending on indefinite claims 1 and 10.
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)(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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sprague et al. US Pat. 10,288,797. Regarding claim 1, Sprague teaches a micro light emitting diode (LED) package structure (fig. 2) for micro LED panels (230, 240, 250, fig. 2) (col.6, lines 17, 23 and 37), comprising: a main circuit board (208, fig. 2; hereinafter called 208V for the vertical portion of 208) (col.5, line 54), comprising a printed circuit (col.5, line 54) for controlling the micro LED panels (230,240,250); circuit branches (top and bottom branches of 208, fig. 2; hereinafter called 208T and 208B) (col.5, line 54), separately connected with the main circuit board (208V); and, micro LED panels (230, 250, fig. 2), separately configured onto the end surfaces of the circuit branches (208T, 208B) (Sprague et al., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sprague teaches the micro LED package structure according to claim 1, wherein, the circuit branches comprise: a first circuit branch (208T), a second circuit branch (208V), and a third circuit branch (208B); wherein, the first circuit branch (208T) and the third circuit branch (208B) are symmetrical relative to the center axis of the second circuit branch (208V) (Sprague et al., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Sprague teaches the micro LED package structure according to claim 1, wherein, the circuit branches (208V, 208T, 208B) are flexible (flexible PCB, (col.5, line 54)) to be folded and assembled with an optical combination element (light guide 210, fig. 2)(col.5, line 32) (Sprague et al., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Sprague teaches the micro LED package structure according to claim 1, wherein, the circuit branches (208V, 208T, 208B) are not flexible (directly laminated (col. 8, lines 51-52) to be assembled with an optical combination element (light guide 210, fig. 2)( col.5, line 32) (Sprague et al., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sprague teaches the micro LED package structure according to claim 1, wherein, the width of the first circuit branch (208T), the width of the second circuit branch (208V), and the width of the third circuit branch (208B) are the same (Sprague et al., fig. 2).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprague et al. US Pat. 10,288,797 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of St. Hilaire et al. US PGPub. 2021/0176440. Regarding claim 2, Sprague teaches the micro LED package structure according to claim 1, wherein, the width of the circuit branches (208T, 208B) is equal to or less than the width of a light guide (210, fig. 2)( col.5, line 32) with which the circuit branches (208T, 208B) are assembled. But Sprague fails to teach wherein the light guide (210) is an x-cube or an X-cube with which the circuit branches (208T, 208B) are assembled. However St. Hilaire teaches a micro LED package structure (200, fig. 2) [0024] the light guide is an x-cube (240, fig. 2) [0024] with which the circuit branches/micro LED panels (210-230, fig. 2) [0024] are assembled (St. Hilaire et al., fig. 2). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the light guide of Sprague for the x-cube of St. Hilaire because x-cubes are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose for light guide to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06).
Claims 10-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. US PGPub. 2018/0307129 in view of Sprague et al. US Pat. 10,288,797. Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches a micro LED optical module (100, fig. 2) [0039], comprising: a micro LED package structure (100, fig. 2) [0039] for micro LED panels (110, 120, 130, fig. 2) [0039]; and, a micro optical combination element (150, fig. 2) [0039], wherein the micro LED package structure (100) is assembled with the micro optical combination element (150); wherein, the micro LED package structure comprises: a main circuit board (140, fig. 2) [0045] for controlling the micro LED panels (110, 120, 130); circuit branches (lines connecting 140 to 110, 120, 130, fig. 2; hereinafter called 140-110, 140-120, and 140-130, respectively) [0045], separately connected with the main circuit board (140); and, micro LED panels (110, 120, 130, fig. 2)[0039], separately configured onto the end surfaces of the circuit branches (140-110, 140-120, 140-130) (Shin et al., fig. 2). But Shin fails to teach wherein the main circuit board (140) comprises a printed circuit. However, Sprague teaches a micro light emitting diode (LED) package structure (fig. 2) for micro LED panels (230, 240, 250, fig. 2) (col.6, lines 17, 23 and 37), comprising: a main circuit board (208, fig. 2; hereinafter called 208V for the vertical portion of 208) (col.5, line 54), comprising a printed circuit (col.5, line 54) for controlling the micro LED panels (230,240,250) (Sprague et al., fig. 2) At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the driving unit of Shin for the PCB used for driving the LED panels of Sprague because PCBs are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose to obtain predictable results such as the PCB being able to optical combination element (Sprague et al., col. 8, line 51) (see MPEP 2144.06). Regarding claim 11, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, wherein, the optical combination element (150) is an x-cube (cross dichroic prism, fig. 2 [0039]) (Shin et al., fig. 2, [0039]). It is well known in the art that and x-cube is a cross dichroic prism – see Hikmet et al., US PGPub. 2017/0307798 [0072] as evidence.
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 11, wherein, the width of the circuit branches (lines connecting 140 to 110, 120, 130, fig. 2; hereinafter called 140-110, 140-120, and 140-130, respectively) [0045] is equal to or less than the width of the X-cube (150) (Shin et al., fig. 2). Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, wherein, the micro LED panels (110,120, 130) are assembled facing the optical combination element (150) (Shin et al., fig. 2). Regarding claim 14, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 11, wherein, the micro LED panels (110, 120 and 130) are separately assembled (fig. 2) facing at least some surfaces of the X-cube (150) (Shin et al., fig. 2). Regarding claim 16, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, wherein, the circuit branches (140-110, 140-120, and 140-130) comprise: a first circuit branch (140-110), a second circuit branch (140-120), and a third circuit branch (140-130); wherein, the first circuit branch (140-110) and the third circuit branch (140-130) are symmetrical relative to the center axis of the second circuit branch (140-120) (Shin et al., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, wherein, the circuit branches (top, center-vertical and bottom branches of 208, fig. 2; hereinafter called 208T, 208V and 208B) (col.5, line 54) are flexible (flexible PCB, (col.5, line 54)) to be assembled with the optical combination element (light guide 210, fig. 2)(col.5, line 32); and the circuit branches (208T, 208V, 208B) are folded to face the optical combination element (210)) (Sprague et al., fig. 2). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the driving unit of Shin for the flexible PCB used for driving the LED panels of Sprague because PCBs are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose to obtain predictable results such as the PCB being able to optical combination element (Sprague et al., col. 8, line 51) (see MPEP 2144.06). Regarding claim 18, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, wherein, the circuit branches (top, center-vertical and bottom branches of 208, fig. 2; hereinafter called 208T, 208V and 208B) (col.5, line 54) are not flexible (directly laminated (col. 8, lines 51-52) to be assembled with the optical combination element (light guide 210, fig. 2)( col.5, line 32) (Sprague et al., fig. 2). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the driving unit of Shin for the flexible PCB used for driving the LED panels of Sprague because PCBs are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose to obtain predictable results such as the PCB being able to optical combination element (Sprague et al., col. 8, line 51) (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 19, Shin in view of Sprague teaches the micro LED optical module according to claim 10, the width of the first circuit branch (208T), the width of the second circuit branch (208V), and the width of the third circuit branch (208B) are the same (Sprague et al., fig. 2). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the driving unit of Shin for the flexible PCB used for driving the LED panels of Sprague because PCBs are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose to obtain predictable results such as the PCB being able to optical combination element (Sprague et al., col. 8, line 51) (see MPEP 2144.06).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 15 and 20-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a micro LED package structure wherein “the micro LED panels are separately configured on each of the circuit branches and electrically connected with each of the circuit branches” as recited in claim 7 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; a micro LED optical module wherein “the top of the micro LED panels is in a same horizontal level” as recited in claim 15 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 10-11 and 14;
a micro LED optical module wherein “the micro LED panels are separately configured on each of the circuit branches and electrically connected with each of the circuit branches” as recited in claim 20 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 8-9 and 21-22 are also allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claims 7 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang US PGPub. 2011/0310357 (fig. 3) and Hikmet et al. US PGPub. 2017/0307798 (fig. 2) teaches a micro LED package structure with LED panels combined with an x-cube; and Nelson US PGPub. 2014/0340902 teaches an LED package structure (fig. 16) with micro LED separately connected to end surfaces of a circuit branch of a PCB.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights