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 filed 01/22/2026 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that cited prior arts fail to teach “a plurality of light collimators that are configured to redirect image light from the LED micro-display to be incident on the projection optics at different angles”. In response to the argument, the Office respectfully submits that Bricks discloses a collimation apparatus 7 (Figs. 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 13-16 and 18-20) provided between an array of emitters 2 and an optical imaging apparatus 10. The collimation apparatus 7 is configured to restrict an opening angle of a beam 8. Brick further teaches that the collimation apparatus 7 is configured to redirect image light from the light emitting diodes. For example, Fig.10, an input light from a light emitting diode 3 of the array 2 passes through the collimation apparatus 7. As shown in Fig.10 reproduced below, an output light 4 from the collimation apparatus 7 has a direction different from a direction of the input light. Similarly, in Fig.17, image light from the light emitting diode 3 of the array 2 is redirected (i.e., changing the direction) after passing through the collimation apparatus 7.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Output light from the collimation apparatus 7)][AltContent: textbox (Input light from light emitting diodes 3)]
PNG
media_image1.png
712
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.10 of Brick reproduced)
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 2, 7-8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub 2018/0284460 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US Pub 2019/0335553 A1) and further in view of Brick (US Pub 2018/0299673).
Regarding claim 2; Cheng teaches a head-mounted display system (a head mounted display system, Fig.2) comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
410
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig.9D of Cheng reproduced)
a head-mountable frame (a frame 80, Fig.2, para. [0062]);
a full-color illumination system supported by the head-mountable frame (Fig.9D, para. [0110 and 0147], the head mounted display comprises an illumination system 900 including one or more light emitters 904. Para. [0110], the one or more light emitters are configured to emit lights having red, green, and blue colors), wherein the full-color illumination system comprises a plurality of light emitters that are configured to output image light in a plurality of component colors (para. [0033-0040, 0107, and 0110], one or more light emitters include light emitting diodes (LEDs), such as color LEDs like red, green, and blue LEDs);
an eyepiece (an eyepiece, Fig.9D) supported by the head-mountable frame (para. [0062]), wherein the eyepiece is configured to receive the image light from the full-color illumination system (Fig.9D, para. [0106-0115]) and to direct the image light to an eye of a user during operation of the head-mounted display system by the user (Fig.9D, the eyepiece receives light rays 770, 780, and 790 from the illumination system 900 and direct the light rays to the user’s eyes),
wherein the eyepiece comprises one or more sets of waveguides that form a waveguide stack (Fig.9D, para. [0017]), each set of waveguides comprising a dedicated waveguide for a component color of the plurality of component colors (para. [0091 and 0096-0101], each stack of waveguide (e.g., 670, 680, and 690) corresponds to a specific color (wavelength or a range of wavelength)), and each waveguide of the waveguide stack comprising:
an in-coupling optical element (in-coupling optical elements 700, 710, and 720; Fig.9D) configured to in-couple light from the illumination system into the waveguide (Fig.9D, para. [0091]); and
an out-coupling optical element (out-coupling optical elements 800, 810, and 820; Fig.9B) configured to out-couple in-coupled light out of the waveguide (para. [0101]);
projection optics (imaging optics 908, Fig.9D); and
the image light is incident on the projection optics at angles which cause the projection optics to output the image light such that the image light in each component color propagates to an appropriate in-coupling optical element of the dedicated waveguide for that component color (Fig.9D, para. [0108-0111], the imaging optics 908 is configured to project image lights in different colors (e.g., 770, 780, and 790) to corresponding in-coupling optical elements (e.g., 700, 710, and 720; respectively). More specifically, para. [0097], the light rays 770, 780, 790 may also be laterally displaced to different locations corresponding to the lateral locations of the in-coupling optical elements 700, 710, 720).
Cheng does not teach a nanowire micro-LED display.
Ahmed teaches a nanowire micro-LED display (para. [0026,0029], Ahmed discloses a micro LED display which can be used in a head mounted display. Para. [0014, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0069, 0078, and 0079], the micro LED displays are nanowire LEDs).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the micro LED display in the head mounted display system of Cheng to include the teaching of Ahmed of providing a nanowire micro LED display. The motivation would have been in order to preserve the image and color quality (Ahmed, para. [0069]).
Cheng in view of Ahmed does not teach a plurality of light collimators that are configured to redirect the image light output from the plurality of light emitters.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig.1 of Brick reproduced)
Brick teaches a plurality of light collimators (Figs. 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-20; a collimation apparatus 7) that are configured to redirect the image light output from the plurality of light emitters (Figs.1 and 10, para. [0147-0150], the collimation apparatus 7 is provided between an array of emitters 2 and an optical imaging apparatus 10. The collimation apparatus 7 is configured to restrict a first opening angle 5 of beam 8. In particular, the beam 8 leaves the collimation apparatus 7 in an emission direction 6 with a smaller second opening angle 9).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed to include the teaching of Brick of providing a collimation apparatus between an array of emitters and an optical imaging apparatus for reducing a divergence profile of the beam. The motivation would have been in order to obtain improved image presentation (Brick, para. [0118 and 0150]).
Regarding claim 7; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng further teaches as seen in a top- down view, a spatial arrangement of the in-coupling optical elements comprises different in-coupling optical elements of different waveguides localized in different spaced-apart positions (see Figs.9A-9C; in a top-down view; in-coupling optical elements (700, 710, and 720) are spatially located in different position).
Regarding claim 8; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng further teaches the waveguide stack is configured to output the outcoupled light with variable amounts of wavefront divergence corresponding to a plurality of depth planes (Figs. 5A-5C; para. [0068], at different depth planes, the degree of divergence of light rays is also different, with the degree of divergence increasing with decreasing distance between depth planes and the viewer's eye 210).
Regarding claim 10; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng further teaches the eyepiece comprises a plurality of different sets of waveguides that output light with different amounts of wavefront divergence corresponding to different depth planes (Figs.5A-5C, an amount of divergence of light may be changed in according to a distance between an object and the user’s eyes. In particular, at different depth planes, the degree of divergence of light rays is also different, with the degree of divergence increasing with decreasing distance between depth planes and the viewer's eye 210).
Regarding claim 11; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng further teaches the in-coupling optical elements (in-coupling optical elements 700, 710 and 720; Fig.9C) are configured to in-couple light with the in-coupled light propagating generally in a propagation direction through an associated waveguide (Figs. 9A-9D), wherein the in-coupling optical elements occupy an area having a width parallel to the propagation direction and a length along an axis crossing the propagation direction, wherein the length is greater than the width (Fig.9C, each of in-coupling optical elements 700,710, and 720 occupies an area having a width parallel to a propagation direction (i.e., x direction, Fig.9B) and a length along an axis perpendicular to the propagation direction (i.e., y direction, Fig.9B). As shown in Figs. 9B and 9C, the length is longer than the width).
Regarding claim 12; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng teaches light emitted from the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display having different wavelengths are redirected to different directions by the projection optics (Fig.9D, image lights in different colors are directed to the imaging optics 908 where the image lights (e.g., 770, 780, and 790) are laterally displaced and redirected to different directions (e.g., collimated, see para. [0111])).
Cheng does not teach nanowire LED micro-display.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng does not explicitly teach the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display are subdivided into monochrome light emitters.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Brick teaches light emitters are subdivided into monochrome light emitters (Fig.1, para. [0126], the array 2 comprises a plurality of light emitting pixels. Each light emitting pixel comprises a red, a green, and a blue light emitting diodes. For example, para. [0139], each array may have light-emitting diodes that emit light having the same wavelength range. In particular, light-emitting diodes of blue light are arranged in a first array, light-emitting diodes of a green light are arranged in a second array, and light-emitting diodes of a red light are arranged in a third array. In another example, para. [0153], it is possible for each of light-emitting diode 3 having a red color spectrum, a light-emitting diode 3 having a green color spectrum and a light-emitting diode 3 having a blue color spectrum to alternate in a row of the array 2).
At the time of invention was effectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng and Ahmed to include the teaching of Brick of subdividing light emitting diodes into red, green, and blue emitters. The motivation would have been in order to generate uniform image light.
Regarding claim 14; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng does not teach the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display emit the image light with a relatively broad angular emission profile, and wherein the plurality of light collimators reduce the angular emission profile of the image light in addition to redirecting the image light.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Brick teaches the emitters emit the image light with a relatively broad angular emission profile, and wherein the plurality of light collimators reduce the angular emission profile of the image light in addition to redirecting the image light (Figs.1 and 10, para. [0147-0150], the collimation apparatus 7 is configured to reduce the angular emission profile of light beam 8. In addition, Fig.10, the collimation apparatus redirects the electromagnetic rays 4 emitted from the light emitting diode 3).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng does not teach the full-color nanowire LED micro-display emits light of three component colors and, in combination with the projection optics and the plurality of light collimators, forms a three-pupil projection system.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Brick teaches the display emits light of three component colors and, in combination with the projection optics (the optical imaging apparatus 10, Figs. 1 and 7) and the plurality of light collimators (collimation apparatus 7/15, Figs. 1 and 7), forms a three-pupil projection system (Figs.7 and 10; Brick discloses that one collimation lens 15 is corresponding to one light-emitting pixel including three light emitting diodes 3. Therefore, Brick further disclose a three-pupil projection system).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed to include the teaching of Brick of providing one collimation lens for one light emitting pixel including three light emitting diodes. The motivation would have been in order to simplify the structure and manufacturing process of the head-mounted display system.
Regarding claim 16; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng does not teach the plurality of light collimators form an array of light collimators associated with the plurality of nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Brick teaches the plurality of light collimators form an array of light collimators associated with the plurality of light emitters (Figs. 4, 7, and 10; the collimation apparatus 7 includes an array of collimation lens 15 (Figs. 4 and 7) or an array of sub-lens 20 (Fig.10)).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 16 as discussed above. Cheng does not teach the plurality of light collimators have different physical parameters across the array.
Brick teaches the plurality of light collimators have different physical parameters across the array (Para. [0119], the collimation apparatus can also have different collimation lenses, wherein the different collimation lenses make possible a varying size and/or a varying degree of reduction of the first opening angle to different second opening angles).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed to include the teaching of Brick of providing collimation apparatus having different collimation lenses. The motivation would have been in order to achieve optimization of the beam guidance (Brick, para. [0119]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub 2018/0284460 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US Pub 2019/0335553 A1) and Brick as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Pub. 2017/0293145 A1).
Regarding claim 3; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng, Ahmed, and Brick do not teach first and second variable focus lens elements, wherein the waveguide stack is between the first and second variable focus lens elements, wherein the first variable focus lens element is configured to modify a wavefront divergence of light outputted by the waveguides, wherein the second variable focus lens element is configured to modify a wavefront divergence of light from an external world propagating through the second variable focus lens element.
Miller teaches first and second variable focus lens elements (Fig.10A, a first and second variable focus lens elements 2007a and 2007b), wherein the waveguide stack (a waveguide stack 2005a, Fig.10A) is between the first and second variable focus lens elements (Fig.10A), wherein the first variable focus lens element is configured to modify a wavefront divergence of light outputted by the waveguides (para. [0114], the first variable focus lens element 2007a is configured to modify the wavefront of light emitted from the waveguides to provide an appropriate amount of divergence for image information), wherein the second variable focus lens element is configured to modify a wavefront divergence of light from an external world propagating through the second variable focus lens element (para. [0007,0008,0125], the optical power of the first and second variable focus lens elements 2007a and 2007b may be set based upon the vergence point of the eyes 2001 and 2002. Therefore, the second variable focus lens element 2007b would be configured to modify the wavefront divergence of light from an environment passing through the second variable focus lens element 2007b).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick to include the teaching of Miller of providing a first and second variable focus lens elements. The motivation would have been in order to allow the display to readily adapt to new user prescription as, e.g., the user’s age and the condition of one or both eyes changes (Miller, para. [0066]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub 2018/0284460 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US Pub 2019/0335553 A1) and Brick as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yeoh et al. (US Pub. 2018/0180817 A1).
Regarding claim 4; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng and Ahmed do not teach a color filter between two neighboring waveguides of the waveguide stack of the eyepiece, wherein a first of the neighboring waveguides precedes a second of the neighboring waveguides in a light path extending from the full-color nanowire LED micro-display, wherein the color filter is configured to selectively absorb light of a wavelength corresponding to a wavelength of light configured to be in-coupled by the in-coupling optical element of the first of the neighboring waveguide.
Yeoh teaches a color filter (Fig.3, e.g., optical filter 392) between two neighboring waveguides of the waveguide stack of the eyepiece (Fig.3, the optical filter 392 is disposed between first neighboring waveguides 340 and 350. The optical filter 394 is disposed between second neighboring waveguides 350 and 360), wherein a first of the neighboring waveguides precedes a second of the neighboring waveguides in a light path extending from the full-color illumination system (Fig.3, the first neighboring waveguides precede the second neighboring waveguides in a light path extending from the projector subsystem 310), wherein the color filter is configured to selectively absorb light of a wavelength corresponding to a wavelength of light configured to be in-coupled by the in-coupling optical element of the first of the neighboring waveguides (para. [0030-0031], the optical filter 392 is configured to have a high transmittance value in the green and red wavelength ranges and a low transmittance value in the blue wavelength range. Therefore, image light transmitted by the first optical filter 392 and incident on the ICG 352 in the green waveguide 350 may contain primarily green image light and red image light, and very little or no blue image light. In other words, the optical filter 392 selectively absorbs blue light).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick to include the teaching of Yeoh of providing optical filters between two neighboring waveguides. The motivation would have been in order to reduce wavelength cross-coupling (Yeoh, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 5; Cheng in view of Ahmed, Brick, and Yeoh teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 4 as discussed above. Cheng and Ahmed do not teach a third waveguide (Fig.3, a waveguide 360, Fig.3) following the second of the neighboring waveguides in the light path (Fig.3, the waveguide 360 follows the waveguide 350 in the light path); and an other color filter (a color filter 394) configured to selectively absorb light of a wavelength corresponding to a wavelength of light configured to be in-coupled by the in-coupling optical element of the second of the neighboring waveguides.
Yeoh teaches a third waveguide following the second of the neighboring waveguides in the light path; and an other color filter configured to selectively absorb light of a wavelength corresponding to a wavelength of light configured to be in-coupled by the in-coupling optical element of the second of the neighboring waveguides (para. [0030-0032], the second optical filter 394 may be configured to have a high transmittance value in the red wavelength range, and a low transmittance value in the green and blue wavelength ranges. Therefore, image light transmitted by the second optical filter 394 and incident on the ICG 362 in the red waveguide 360 may contain primarily red image light, and very little or no green image light and blue image light).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng and Ahmed do not teach absorptive color filters on major surfaces of at least some of the waveguides of the waveguide stack, wherein the absorptive color filters on major surfaces of the waveguides are configured to absorb light of wavelengths in-coupled into a corresponding waveguide.
Yeoh teaches absorptive color filters (Figs.9-10; short-pass filters 518 and 538) on major surfaces of at least some of the waveguides of the waveguide stack (e.g., Fig.9, the short-pass filter 518 is disposed on a major surface of a waveguide 510), wherein the absorptive color filters on major surfaces of the waveguides are configured to absorb light of wavelengths in-coupled into a corresponding waveguide (Para. [0057-0058], the first short-pass filter 518 may be configured to pass blue light and absorb green light, so that the green image light cross-coupled into the first waveguide 510 may be absorbed by the first short-pass filter 518).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick to include the teaching of Yeoh of providing short-pass filter on a surface of a waveguide. The motivation would have been in order to prevent unwanted color light from propagating to the OPE and the EPE regions of the waveguide (Yeoh, para. [0057-0058]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub 2018/0284460 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US Pub 2019/0335553 A1) and Brick as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Scheller et al. (US Pub. 2021/0157142 A1).
Regarding claim 9; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng does not teach the nanowire light emitters of the full-color nanowire LED micro-display each have an angular emission profile of less than 500.
Ahmed teaches the nanowire light emitters of the nanowire LED micro-display (see the analysis of claim 2 above). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 2.
Cheng in view of Ahmed does not teach light emitters have an angular emission profile of less than 50o.
Scheller teaches light emitters have an angular emission profile of less than 50o (Figs.9A-9B, para. [0115-0116], Scheller discloses a head-mounted display system comprising a micro-LED array 910 having broad beam profiles. For example, a beam profile of a light beam 920 emitted from each micro-LED in micro-LED array 910 may have an HWHM (i.e., half width half magnitude) angle of, for example, about 40°).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick to include the teaching of Scheller of providing an LED array having a beam profile about 40°. The motivation would have been in order to maintain the uniformity and brightness of image light (Scheller, para. [0115]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub 2018/0284460 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US Pub 2019/0335553 A1) and Brick as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of You et al. (US Pub. 2020/0081294 A1).
Regarding claim 18; Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2 as discussed above. Cheng, Ahmed, and Brick do not teach the plurality of light collimators comprises flat nano-lenses.
You teaches the plurality of light collimators comprises flat nano-lenses (Figs.5 and 6, para. [0075], a meta-lens 233 comprises a plurality of flat nanostructures NS4 configured to collimate light emitted from light emitting elements 112. You further discloses that a shape distribution of the nanostructures may be determined such that the meta-lens is configured to operate as a concave or convex lens).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the head-mounted display system of Cheng in view of Ahmed and Brick to include the teaching of You of providing a meta-lens comprising a plurality of flat nanostructures functioning as a collimator. The motivation would have been in order to collimate the image light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koshihara (US Pub. 2020/0089012 A1) discloses a synthesis optical system including a dichroic prism. The dichroic prism includes a dichroic mirror and is configured to synthesize the first colored light, the second colored light, and the third colored light. The dichroic mirror is configured to transmit or reflect the first colored light and reflect or transmit the second colored light and the third colored light. In an image display module, a first display panel includes a plurality of first light-emitting elements configured to emit the first colored light, and the second display panel includes a plurality of second light-emitting elements configured to emit the second colored light and a plurality of third light-emitting elements configured to emit the third colored light.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights