DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 9/4/2026 has been entered.
The objections over the Drawings as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/4/2026 and on the applicant’s arguments presented in the Remarks filed 9/4/2026.
The objections over the Claims as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/4/2026 .
The claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the amendment filed 9/4/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendments filed 9/4/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendments filed 9/4/2026 and on the applicant’s arguments presented in the Remarks filed 9/4/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendments filed 9/4/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendments filed 9/4/2026. However, new rejections over prior art based on the amendment filed 9/4/2026 are presented herein.
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. 80
(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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salt et al. (CN 107869667; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 1, Salt et al. discloses a method to use Micro-LEDs in a vehicle interior light, the method comprising: providing a Micro-LED panel comprised of one or more Micro-LED tiles [68] of Micro- LEDs (see middle of page 10); providing a substrate [52] to which the Micro-LED tile is bound (see top of page 8 and Figure 8); and providing electronics [54] of the Micro-LED panel to integrate with a vehicle (see top of page 8, bottom of page 10, middle of page 11 and Figures 6, 8, and 11), wherein the electronics [54] use the substrate [52] as part of a circuit (see top of page 8 and top of page 10 and Figure 6), and wherein the Micro-LED panel performs a function of a vehicle interior light (see top half of page 7 and top half of page 11; the panel can be designed to incorporate into a vehicle interior in an instrument panel, a door panel, a central console, an armrest, and cup holder and is substantially designed to provide illumination, thereby substantially performing a function of a vehicle interior light); connecting the electronics of the Micro-LED panel to an electronics system of the vehicle (see top half and middle of page 11; the electronics [54] are substantially connected to a vehicle electronics system for integration with an audio system, navigation unit, or other vehicle condition); and illuminating the interior of the vehicle using the Micro-LED panel as the vehicle interior light (see top half and middle of page 11).
With regards to Claim 2, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Salt et al. further discloses multiple small Micro-LED tiles are integrated together into a larger flat plate (see middle and bottom of page 10 and Figures 6 and 9; multiple small Micro-LED tiles are utilized, and when arranged on substrate [52] substantially form a larger flat plate light source).
With regards to Claim 4, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Salt et al. further discloses an intensity and a color of the light from the Micro-LED panel are programmable and change (see bottom of page 10 and top half of page 11).
With regards to Claim 7, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Salt et al. further discloses the substrate [52] further houses or is bound to electronics which connect to the Micro-LEDs (see bottom of page 10 and top half of page 11; the substrate [52] substantially at least is bound to electronics connecting to the Micro-LEDs).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salt et al. (CN 107869667; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Da Silva et al. (US 2025/0231336).
With regards to Claim 5, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Salt et al. does not explicitly disclose the panel uses RGB Micro-LEDs.
Da Silva et al. teaches the panel uses RGB Micro-LEDs [16] (see paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Salt et al. to use RGB Micro-LEDs as taught by Da Silva. One would have been motivated to do so in order to display dynamic color (see Da Silva paragraph 55).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salt et al. (CN 107869667; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0375833).
With regards to Claim 6, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Salt et al. does not explicitly disclose the substrate is one of silicon, glass, sapphire, or a combination thereof.
Lee et al. teaches the substrate [160] is one of silicon, glass, sapphire, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of Salt et al. to be one of silicon, glass, sapphire, or a combination thereof, as taught by Lee et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to easily form a high-temperature TFT structure (see Lee et al. paragraph 67), allowing the Micro-LEDs to be laminated on the PCB (see Lee et al. paragraph 11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salt et al. (CN 107869667; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Vasylyev (US 2017/0254518).
With regards to Claim 9, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Salt et al. does not explicitly disclose a protective layer is disposed on the Micro-LED panel and protects at least one component of the Micro-LED panel from environmental and/or vibrational damage and wherein further the protective layer is either made of glass, epoxy, plastic, metal or any combination thereof and wherein further the protective layer hermetically seals the at least one component.
Vasylyev teaches a protective layer [40] is disposed on the Micro-LED panel and protects at least one component of the Micro-LED panel from environmental and/or vibrational damage (see paragraphs 45 and 46 and Figure 1; the layer [40] substantially protects at least the Micro-LEDs [2]) and wherein further the protective layer [40] is either made of glass, epoxy, plastic, metal or any combination thereof (see paragraphs 8, 84, and 85) and wherein further the protective layer hermetically seals the at least one component (see paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Salt et al. to include a protective layer is disposed on the Micro-LED panel and protects at least one component of the Micro-LED panel from environmental and/or vibrational damage and wherein further the protective layer is either made of glass, epoxy, plastic, metal or any combination thereof and wherein further the protective layer hermetically seals the at least one component, as taught by Vasylyev. One would have been motivated to do so in order to cover and hermetically encapsulate the micro-LEDs (see Vasylyev paragraph 11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salt et al. (CN 107869667; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Ishida et al. (US 2009/0196058).
With regards to Claim 10, Salt et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Salt et al. does not disclose an adhesive strip allows the Micro-LED panel to adhere, or otherwise connect to the vehicle.
Ishida et al. teaches an adhesive strip allowing a light panel to adhere, or otherwise connect to the vehicle (see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Salt et al. to include an adhesive strip allows the Micro-LED panel to adhere, or otherwise connect to the vehicle, as taught by Ishida et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the panel to be fixedly mounted without using a conventional mounting seat, enabling its versatility to be improved (see Ishida et al. paragraph 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/4/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/5/2026 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 Salt et al. based on the amended Claims. As discussed above, the Salt et al. reference addresses the limitations of amended Claim 1, and is included in the present Office Action to address these amendments.
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 ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 4
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on 5712727044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights