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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding the term “pitch” – In the art pitch is how often something repeats, i.e. in context pitch is elements per unit of distance, e.g. 12 lenses per inch. On the other hand, period is the separation between two repeating elements, e.g. center-to-center distance of 0.1 inches between lenses. Pitch and period are inversely related, i.e.
P
i
t
c
h
=
1
P
e
r
i
o
d
. In the instant application, applicant is using the term “pitch” to be synonymous with the standard definition of “period”, see, among other places, paragraph [0003] “Lenslet pitch refers to the distance between the centers of adjacent lenslets in the array”, paragraph [0029] “The projector pitch can be referred to as the separation or distance between the optical centers of the two projectors” and figures 1-3. Therefore, in light of the specification, the term “pitch” will be interpreted to mean a center-to-center measurement (a.k.a. period). This definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., Fed. Cir. 1999; see MPEP 2111.01.IV.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed August 27, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that amendments providing that the selecting step “comprises dicing the wafer such that the portion includes the first projector and the second projector” to claims 1 and 8 overcomes the 101 rejections, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that dicing wafers is a physical act, however, in this case this amounts to recitation that amounts to instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The fact pattern closely follows In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair. In the instant case the method is to match the center-to-center spacing of two wafer elements, selecting the best match for a device and a final step of cutting the wafer. Further, dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9 and 11-14 fail to add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. On the other hand, given the amendments and the remarks claims 3 and 10 do add significantly more to the abstract idea in the form of providing a binocular display.
Regarding applicant’s argument rebutting the 112(f) interpretations of “identifying”, “determining” and “selecting”, the examiner is unpersuaded. For example, “a method comprising: identifying a lens pitch associated with a wafer” is clearly a setting forth a method step, despite the lack of the term “step” – using the three-prong test the nonce term is method (having no specific structural meaning), said method is modified by functional language, i.e. “identifying a lens pitch”, and there is not sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim (e.g. instant application paragraph [0032] notes lens pitch can be provided by an administrator – a sufficient act – or measured by “a sensor or other device” – a sufficient act with sufficient structure). Similar analysis can be applied to “determining” and “selecting.”
Regarding applicant’s argument rebutting the 112(f) interpretations since “the physical, structural act of dicing a semiconductor wafer to extract projectors … imparts sufficient structure and definite physical acts to preform the claimed functions” (emphasis in remarks), the examiner is unpersuaded. Adding a function of “causing dicing” does not add any acts or structure to “identifying”, “determining” and “selecting”.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Liu (and the entirety of cited art) fails to disclose “determining a projector pitch for a first projector and a second projector on the wafer based on the lens pitch” the examiner is unpersuaded. Liu figure 1 shows two projectors, i.e. “LED array” a.k.a. MLEDA, and a microlens array a.k.a. MLA and on page 4 paragraph (h) “arrangement of the MLEDs is identical to the two MLAs.” In context “arrangement positions” includes the positions of the LED arrays and microlens arrays. If said arrangements are “identical” the position (that would incorporate pitch/period) necessarily have been determined in order to state that they are “identical.”
Regarding applicant’s argument that Liu (and the entirety of cited art) fails to disclose or teach dicing the wafer, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that Liu does not disclose dicing. However, Grundmann (e.g. figure 8) discloses a similar array of LEDS and microlenses (e.g. micro-LED array 820 and a micro-lens array 840) where the center-to-center pitch is identical (paragraph [0100] “pitch 822 of micro-LED array 820 may be the same as the pitch 842 of micro-lens array 840”) and further teaches said arrays may be diced (paragraph [0135]) as a known wafer production technique to yield predictable results.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“identifying a lens pitch associated with a wafer” in claims 1 and 8;
“determining a projector pitch for a first projector and a second projector on the wafer based on the lens pitch” in claims 1 and 8;
“selecting a portion of the wafer for a device based on the projector pitch” in claims 1 and 8;
“selecting the portion of the wafer comprises causing a dicing of the wafer such that the portion includes the first projector and the second projector” in claims 1 and 8;
“the device comprises an extended reality device, and wherein the first projector and the second projector provide a binocular display” in claims 3 and 10;
“determining a first quantity of lenses for the first projector” in claims 4 and 11;
“determining a second quantity of lenses for the second projector” in claims 4 and 11;
“selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the first quantity of lenses and the second quantity of lenses” in claims 4 and 11;
“determining a first arrangement of at least one lens for the first projector” in claims 5 and 12;
‘determining a second arrangement of at least one lens for the second projector” in claims 5 and 12;
“selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the first arrangement and the second arrangement.” in claims 5 and 12;
“determining a distance between a left eye display and a right eye display on the device” in claims 6 and 13;
“selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the distance from the left eye display and the right eye display on the device” in claims 6 and 13;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite a method to design an optical device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations are a directed to design choice analysis comparing/matching two optical components with complimentary spacing is a process that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.04a2.III. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as set forth in the analysis below following the current subject matter guidance.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claims 1-7 recite steps and, therefore, is a process/method; and claims 8-15 require a structure, i.e. medium (i.e. memory) storing process/method instructions for implementation on a computer/processor, and, therefore, is a device.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recite the limitations of comparing features two optical elements and selecting compatibly spaced portions. There is nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer devices does not take the claim out of the methods of a mental process since it is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept1. Further, the step of dicing the wafer based on the comparison and selection amounts to appending apply the method as a final step.2 Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea, and is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No, there are no other limitations so there is no practical application, i.e. the claims are directed to the abstract idea. Particularly, dicing the wafer amounts to “applying” the method. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claims as a whole merely require the abstract mental steps and said abstract mental steps implemented on a computer and “applying it”. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. “Design of large-angle distortion-free and spot adjustable LED spot array projector based on microlens array and eyepiece” Displays, Volume 79, 2023, 102487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2023.102487, of record, in view of Grundmann US Patent Application Publication 2021/0159373, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Ogihara US Patent Application Publication 2007/0249178.
Regarding claim 1 Liu discloses a method comprising: identifying a lens pitch associated with a wafer wherein the lens pitch defines a distance between centers of adjacent lenses on the wafer; determining a projector pitch for a first projector and a second projector on the wafer based on the lens pitch; and selecting a portion of the wafer for a device based on the projector pitch (e.g. figure 1 shows two projectors, i.e. “LED array” a.k.a. MLEDA, and a microlens array a.k.a. MLA and on page 4 paragraph (h) “arrangement of the MLEDs is identical to the two MLAs”), wherein selecting the portion of the wafer comprises causing construction (e.g. on page 4 paragraph (h) discusses construction) such that the portion includes the first projector and the second projector (e.g. figure 1 shows two projectors).
Liu does not disclose the construction includes dicing of the wafer.
Grundmann (e.g. figure 8) discloses a similar array of LEDS and microlenses (e.g. micro-LED array 820 and a micro-lens array 840) where the center-to-center pitch is identical (paragraph [0100] “pitch 822 of micro-LED array 820 may be the same as the pitch 842 of micro-lens array 840”) and further teaches said arrays may be diced (paragraph [0135]) for the purpose of using a known wafer production technique (as evidenced by Ogihara paragraph [0004] “conventionally known a dicing method for separating multiple semiconductor devices formed on a semiconductor wafer into individual semiconductor devices”) to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the projector pitch comprises an integer multiple of the lens pitch (e.g. see figure 1 & page 4 paragraph (h) “identical”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the device comprises an extended reality device, and wherein the first projector and the second projector provide a binocular display (inherent as set forth in 112 rejection above, further page 2 left column first full paragraph last sentence “Eyepieces are commonly used in various imaging systems, including microscopes, telescopes, and popular augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR) near-eye display systems” e.g. see figure 1b).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses it is further comprising: determining a first quantity of lenses for the first projector (inherent to achieve function); and determining a second quantity of lenses for the second projector (inherent to achieve function); wherein selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the first quantity of lenses and the second quantity of lenses (implicit e.g. see flowchart in figure 3 and description of steps on pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses it is further comprising: determining a first arrangement of at least one lens for the first projector (inherent to achieve function); and determining a second arrangement of at least one lens for the second projector (inherent to achieve function); wherein selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the first arrangement and the second arrangement (implicit e.g. see flowchart in figure 3 and description of steps on pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, as set forth above. Liu further discloses a left eye display and a right eye display (e.g. see figure 1). Liu does not disclose determining a distance between the left and right eye displays and wherein selecting the portion of the wafer for the device based on the projector pitch is further based on the distance between the left eye display and the right eye display on the device. However, this would be duplication of method steps applied to the left and right displays, which would be using of the same known technique to improve the next layer in the device in the same way, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to have the lens arrays for the left eye and the right eye spaced appropriately (i.e. aligned) for good function of a 3D display. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method as disclosed by the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann to be applied to align the left and right displays with lenses in an array for the purpose of have the lens arrays for the left eye and the right eye spaced appropriately (i.e. aligned) for good function of a 3D display and since this would be using of the same technique to improve the next layer in the device in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Liu further discloses wherein the first projector comprises a first set of one or more lenses, and wherein the second projector comprises a second set of one or more lenses (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu as modified by Grundmann discloses an apparatus comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; at least one processor operatively coupled to the computer-readable storage medium (implicit that software, such as CODE V®, is executed on a processor); and program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to perform a method (implicit given page 4 section 3.1 references using software package CODE V® and parameters entered into software), the method comprising the method of claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claims 9-14, the limitations of claims 9-14 are the same as the limitations of claims 2-7, respectively, and claims 9-14 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagumo US Patent Application Publication 2009/0237483; in regards to further evidence that dicing is a well-known means for forming a device from a wafer, see paragraph [0074].
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 11, 2026
1 See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.
2 See MPEP 2106.05(f) and In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as discussed above.
Prosecution Insights