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 .
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.
Claim 22 is 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. The claim recites “a backplane including one or more light detecting elements electronically coupled to the light detecting elements.”. The claim recites the detecting element is coupled to itself. Based on the specification, it appears the light detecting elements are coupled to the light emitting elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 9-10, 12, 14 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cok (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0323180).
With reference to claim 1, Cok discloses an apparatus (99) (see paragraph 55; Fig. 1) comprising:
an array of light emitting elements (24) (see paragraphs 56-57; Fig. 1); and
a processor (in teaching pixel controller (28); see paragraphs 71-72; Fig. 1, 6, 8) configured to:
define a correspondence between the light emitting elements (24) and a plurality of logical groups (consisting of pixel 20 and redundant pixel 20’) of light emitting elements (24) see paragraphs 85-86; Fig. 12A); and
dynamically re-define the correspondence between the light emitting elements (24) and the plurality of logical groups to compensate for aging of at least one of the light emitting elements (repair location 90 provides repair light emitting elements 24RBG’ if emitting elements 24RGB fails or is otherwise inoperable or dysfunctional; see paragraphs 85-86; Figs. 12A).
With reference to claim 2, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the logical groups (20, 20’) include light emitting elements (24, 24’) configured to generate at least three different colors of light, the at least three different colors of light include red light, green light, and blue light (see paragraphs 57, 87; Figs. 1, 6, 12), and the processor (28) is configured to perform the re-defining of the correspondence between the light emitting elements (24) and the plurality of logical groups (20, 20’) to compensate for variations in aging (failure) of the light emitting elements (24) of the different colors (RGB) (see paragraphs 85-86; Figs. 6, 12).
With reference to claim 9, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the defining of the correspondence between the light emitting elements (24, 24’) and the plurality of logical groups (20, 20’) is initially defined during manufacturing (see paragraph 85), the dynamic re-defining of the correspondence between the light emitting elements (24, 24’) and the plurality of logical groups (20, 20’) is performed after the apparatus is deployed (see paragraph 85), and the re-defining of the correspondence between the light emitting elements and the plurality of logical groups is performed to optimize a display experience for a viewer (see paragraph 85-87; Fig. 12A).
With reference to claim 10, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the array of light emitting elements is arranged into a plurality of emitter elements, the plurality of emitter elements are organized into an N x M array, and N is greater than or equal to 1000 and M is greater than or equal to 1000 (in teaching the resolution of pixel elements over a tile substrate can vary up to thousands of pixel elements per inch; see paragraph 116).
With reference to claim 12, Cok discloses an apparatus (99) (see paragraph 55; Fig. 1), comprising:
an emitter element (20) including an array of light emitting elements (24) arranged in a pattern (see Fig. 12A), the array including:
a first plurality of light emitting elements (24RGB) configured to produce light for an image (see paragraphs 85-86; Fig. 12); and
a second plurality of light emitting elements (24RGB’) included in the pattern and configured as a backup for the first plurality of light emitting elements (see paragraphs 85-86; Fig. 12A).
With reference to claim 14, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further comprising a processor (28) configured to define a correspondence between the light emitting elements (24, 24’) and a plurality of logical groups (20, 20’), wherein the processor (28) is further configured to dynamically re-define the correspondence between the light emitting elements (24, 24’) and the plurality of logical groups (20, 20’) to compensate for aging of at least one of the light emitting elements (24RGB), and the processor (28) uses one of the second plurality of light emitting elements (24RGB’) in the dynamic re-define the correspondence between the light emitting elements and the plurality of logical groups to replace an aged light emitting element from the first plurality of light emitting elements (see paragraph 85-87; Fig. 12A).
With reference to claim 18, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the light emitting elements (24, 24’) are a light emitting diode (LED), the LED is an inorganic LED, and a dimension of each LED is in a range between about 0.4 microns and 4 microns (see paragraph 115).
With reference to claim 20, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the array of light emitting elements (24, 24’) has a geometric arrangement to allow adjacent placement with other emitter elements, the geometric arrangement is one of a hexagonal shape, a square shape, or a rectangular shape (see paragraph 99; Figs. 1, 14), and a size of the emitter element is between about 10 microns and about 1,000 microns (see paragraph 115).
With reference to claim 21, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the first plurality of light emitting elements (24) are configured to generate red light, green light, and blue light (see paragraph 57; Figs. 6, 12), the second plurality of light emitting elements (24’) are interspersed within the pattern (see Fig. 12B), and the second plurality of light emitting elements are configured to generate red light, green light, and blue light (see paragraph 86-87; Fig. 12B).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Chaji (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0080970).
With reference to claim 3, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however fails to disclose the logical groups as recited.
Chaji discloses a micro-LED display device (100) having a redundant device (see abstract) wherein the logical groups (102) include: two light emitting elements configured to generate red light (R),one light emitting element configured to generate green light (G), and one light emitting element configured to generate blue light (B) (a plurality of subpixels (102) of the display, at least one subpixel comprising RRGB pixels, i.e. col. 1, row 3 of array 502a; see paragraphs 47-48, 51; Figs. 1-5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of the logical groups similar to that which is taught by Chaji to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Cok to thereby employ repair of defective emitting devices (see Chaji; paragraph 53).
With reference to claim 15, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, however fails to disclose the sets of light emitting elements as recited.
Chaji discloses a micro-LED display device (100) having a redundant device (see abstract) wherein the first plurality of light emitting elements (each pixel (104a, 106a, 108a) comprises a group of subpixels; paragraph 47; Fig. 1a, b) include a sub-pixel (102a) includes a first set of light emitting elements configured to produce red light (see paragraph 47; Fig. 1a, b), a second set of light emitting elements (108a) configured to produce green light (see paragraph 47; Fig. 1a, b), and a third set of light emitting elements (106a) configured to produce blue light (see paragraph 47; Fig. 1a, b), the second plurality of light emitting elements (each pixel (104a, 106a, 108a) comprises a group of spare sub-pixels; paragraph 47; Fig. 1a, b) include at least one additional light emitting element for each of the first, second, and third sets (see paragraphs 47; Fig. 1a, b), and a number of light emitting elements in the first set is twice a number of light emitting elements in the second set and twice a number of light emitting elements in the third set (in teaching redundant sub-pixels comprising an entire array populated by one color, e.g. blue or a combined color; see paragraph 67; Figs. 8-9).
Claims 4-5, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Haase (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0069433).
With reference to claim 4, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses the processor is further configured to perform the re-defining of the correspondence between the light emitting elements and the plurality of logical groups to compensate for aging of the light steering optical elements (repair location 90 provides repair light emitting elements 24RBG’ if emitting elements 24RGB fails or is otherwise inoperable or dysfunctional; see paragraphs 85-86; Figs. 12A).
Cok fails to disclose a light steering optical element as recited.
Haase discloses a light emitting system (200) (see abstract, paragraphs 53-54), wherein the array of light emitting elements (210-212) is arranged into a plurality of emitter elements (220-222) (see paragraphs 48, 104-105), the emitter elements (220-222) have a corresponding light steering optical element (270, 820) (see paragraphs 92, 118-119; Figs. 2, 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a steering element similar to what is taught by Hasse to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Cok to thereby redirect light emitted by the emitting elements in one or more directions (see Hasse; paragraph 119).
With reference to claim 5, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however fails to disclose the light steering optical element as recited.
Haase discloses a light emitting system (200) (see abstract, paragraphs 53-54), and comprising a light steering optical element (270) corresponding to the array of light emitting elements (220-222), wherein the light steering optical element includes at least one of a microlens and a grating (light extractor can be any element and can have any shape; see paragraph 82; Fig. 2), and the light emitting elements (570-572) are monolithically integrated on a same semiconductor substrate (510) (see paragraph 105; Fig. 5).
With reference to claim 7, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate as recited.
Haase discloses a light emitting system (200) (see abstract, paragraphs 53-54), wherein the light emitting elements (220-222) are monolithically integrated on a semiconductor substrate (205) (see paragraph 105; Figs. 2, 5), the semiconductor substrate (205) includes one or more of GaN, GaAs, A12O3, Si, SiC, or Ga2O3 (see paragraph 98; Figs. 2, 5), and the light emitting elements (220-222) are formed at least partially of one or more of AlN, GaN, InN, AlAs, GaAs, InAs, AlP, GaP, or JnP (see paragraph 64-66).
With reference to claim 17, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, however fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate as recited.
Haase discloses a light emitting system (200) (see abstract, paragraphs 53-54), wherein the light emitting elements (220-222) are monolithically integrated on a semiconductor substrate (205) (see paragraph 105; Figs. 2, 5), the semiconductor substrate (205) includes one or more of GaN, GaAs, A12O3, Si, SiC, or Ga2O3 (see paragraph 98; Figs. 2, 5), and the light emitting elements (220-222) are formed at least partially of one or more of AlN, GaN, InN, AlAs, GaAs, InAs, AlP, GaP, or JnP (see paragraph 64-66).
Claims 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20090115705; hereinafter Miller).
With reference to claim 6, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including a plurality of logical groups (20, 20’) (see paragraphs 57, 87; Figs. 1, 6, 12) however, fails to disclose different directional light output as recited.
Miller discloses wherein the plurality of logical groups (4, 6) are configured to produce a different directional light output, and the different directional light outputs contribute to one or more light field views perceived by a viewer (a first optical element (14) for directing the light into a first viewing cone (not shown), and a second optical element (16) directing light over a second viewing cone for presenting images having two or more fields of view; see paragraph 18, 24-25; Figs. 1-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of directional light output similar to that which is taught by Miller to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Cok in order to provide a display device capable of having a multiple viewing angles (see Miller; paragraph 5).
With reference to claim 8, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more drivers (72) (a plurality of drivers that drives a signal onto column data circuits and row select circuits; see paragraphs 75, 78; Figs. 9-10) are configured to generate signals to operate the light emitting elements (24) based on the dynamically re-define the correspondence between the light emitting elements and the plurality of logical groups (repair location 90 provides repair light emitting elements 24RBG’ if emitting elements 24RGB fails or is otherwise inoperable or dysfunctional; see paragraphs 85-86; Figs. 12A), however fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate as recited.
Miller discloses a display (2) including an array of light-emitting elements (4) (see paragraph 18; Figs. 1-3), further comprising a backplane including one or more drivers (44, 46) electronically coupled to the light emitting elements (24), and the processor (48) is included in the backplane (see paragraphs 20, 34; Fig. 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a backplane arrangement similar to that which is taught by Miller to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Cok in order to provide driving signals to the light-emitting elements (see Miller; paragraph 22).
With reference to claim 11, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the logical groups (20, 20’), wherein a resolution is based on a number of the logical groups (pixel density and size determining resolution; see paragraphs 70, 116), however fails to disclose a specified spatial directionality as recited.
Miller discloses are configured to produce a light output having a specified spatial directionality (first and second viewing cones; see paragraph 18-19; Figs. 1-2), the spatial directionality is defined based on at least two angles (narrow angle, wide-angle; see paragraph 28), and a directional resolution is based on a number of the logical groups (row and column drivers provides signals to one or more row/column lines defining logical groups, wherein an increase in the number of driven groups increases the resolution of the device; see paragraphs 27-28; Fig. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of directional light output similar to that which is taught by Miller to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Cok and Hasse in order to provide a display device capable of having a high-resolution display with improved power consumption (see Miller; paragraph 4).
With reference to claim 13, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, however fails to disclose the light steering optical element as recited.
Miller discloses comprising a light steering optical element (14, 16) corresponding to the array of light emitting elements (4, 6) (a first optical element (14) for directing the light into a first viewing cone (not shown), and a second optical element (16) directing light over a second viewing cone for presenting images having two or more fields of view; see paragraph 18, 24-25; Figs. 1-2), wherein the light steering optical element (14, 16) includes at least one of a microlens and a grating (see paragraph 40), and a spatial offset between the light steering optical element (14, 16) and the array of light emitting elements (4, 6) is dependent on a position of the emitter element (cone of light 38 is corresponding to light emitting elements 4 are offset from flat regions corresponding to light emitting elements 6; see paragraph 24; Fig. 2).
With reference to claim 16, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, however fails to disclose directional light output as recited.
Miller discloses wherein the light emitting elements of the array are grouped to produce a different directional light output, and the different directional light outputs contribute to one or more light field views perceived by a viewer (a first optical element (14) for directing the light into a first viewing cone (not shown), and a second optical element (16) directing light over a second viewing cone for presenting images having two or more fields of view; see paragraph 18, 24-25; Figs. 1-2).
With reference to claim 19, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the one or more drivers (72) (a plurality of drivers that drives a signal onto column data circuits and row select circuits; see paragraphs 75, 78; Figs. 9-10) are configured to generate signals to operate the light emitting elements (24) based on the dynamically re-define the correspondence between the light emitting elements and the plurality of logical groups (repair location 90 provides repair light emitting elements 24RBG’ if emitting elements 24RGB fails or is otherwise inoperable or dysfunctional; see paragraphs 85-86; Figs. 12A), however fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate as recited.
Miller discloses a display (2) including an array of light-emitting elements (4) (see paragraph 18; Figs. 1-3), and further comprising a backplane including one or more drivers (44, 46) electronically coupled to the light emitting elements (24), and the processor (48) is included in the backplane (see paragraphs 20, 34; Fig. 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a backplane arrangement similar to that which is taught by Miller to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Cok in order to provide driving signals to the light-emitting elements (see Miller; paragraph 22).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cok as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hasse and Miller.
With reference to claim 22, Cok discloses the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the emitter element includes a plurality of light detecting elements (pixel controller 28 controllably sense, emit, or reflect light; paragraphs 71, 102; Fig. 8) ), the light detecting elements (28) are integrated on a same semiconductor substrate (10) as the light emitting elements (24) (see paragraphs 72; Fig. 8).
Cok fails to disclose monolithically integration of the light detecting elements and the light emitting elements, or the usage of a backplane as recited.
Haase discloses a light emitting system (200) (see abstract, paragraphs 53-54), wherein the light emitting elements (1310) and light detecting elements (various components) are monolithically integrated on a semiconductor substrate (1302, 1321) (see paragraphs 131-132; Figs. 13A-H).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a steering element similar to what is taught by Hasse to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Cok to thereby provide fabrication methods commonly known (see Hasse; paragraph 131).
Further neither Cok nor Hasse teach the usage of a backplane including detecting elements as recited.
Miller discloses a display (2) including an array of light-emitting elements (4) (see paragraph 18; Figs. 1-3), further comprising a backplane including a one or more light detecting elements (sensor; 222) electronically coupled to the light emitting elements (224), and the processor (48) is included in the backplane (see paragraphs 34, 39; Figs. 3, 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a backplane arrangement similar to that which is taught by Miller to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Cok in order to provide driving signals to the light-emitting elements (see Miller; paragraph 22).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LI et al. (US2016/0102816) discloses a light emitting device having an optical lens having a light exiting surface capable of distributing light in a plurality of angles (see paragraphs 30-38; Figs. 1-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached M0n.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Alecia D English/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
571-270-1595
Prosecution Insights