Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 17/848,311

HYBRID CONTROL FOR LEDS, PIXELS, AND DISPLAYS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 23, 2022
Priority
Mar 11, 2022 — provisional 63/319,239 +1 more
Examiner
CHOI, CALVIN Y
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
X Display Company Technology Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
711 granted / 869 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
885
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
68.2%
+28.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 869 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 19 August 2026. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 August 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bower et al. (US 2017/0287789 A1; previously made of record; cited in the prior Office Action dated 23 December 2025; hereinafter Bower). In regards to claim 1, Bower teaches a hybrid-control pixel, comprising: a TFT substrate (20) ([0005], [0113]); a TFT circuit ([0113]: e.g. (20) is a PCB) formed on or in the TFT substrate; a micro-device (e.g. (10) or (12)) [0120] comprising a micro-circuit (fig. 15: e.g. circuit portion (83/84) of circuit device element (80)) formed on or in a semiconductor integrated-circuit substrate ([0145]: (10) includes semiconductor devices including semiconductor layers such as an integrated circuit, e.g. a semiconductor substrate), wherein the semiconductor integrated-circuit substrate is non-native to the TFT substrate (fig. 2: e.g. (10) is a distinct element from (20)) and the micro-circuit is electrically connected to the TFT circuit ([0114]; fig. 2: (80) is connected to (20) by (16)); and an LED (81) [0121] separate from the micro-device (e.g. fig. 15: (81) in (10) is a discreet element separate from (12)), wherein the LED is electrically connected (e.g. by (83)) [0121] to the micro-circuit or to the TFT circuit (fig. 15: (81) is electrically connected to (83/84)), wherein the TFT circuit and the micro-circuit are together operable to control the LED [0114]. In regards to claim 4, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the LED is an OLED [0124]. In regards to claim 5, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 4. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the OLED is native to (e.g. formed on) the micro-device [0124]. In regards to claim 8, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the LED (81) is an iLED ([0121]; fig. 15). In regards to claim 10, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the LED (81) [0121] comprises one or more connection posts (83) [0121] electrically connected to the micro-circuit ([0120]; fig. 2: (10)). In regards to claim 11, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-device (10) [0120] comprises one or more connection posts (16) [0114] electrically connected to the TFT circuit ([0113]; fig. 2: (20)). In regards to claim 12, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the TFT circuit comprises signal selection circuitry [0127]. In regards to claim 13, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-circuit comprises LED driving circuitry [0114]. In regards to claim 14, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the TFT circuit comprises a thin-film capacitor and the micro-circuit is responsive to the thin-film capacitor [0069]. In regards to claim 15, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-circuit is responsive to a voltage provided by the TFT circuit [0114]. In regards to claim 16, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-circuit comprises a storage device and the storage device stores a value corresponding to a value provided by the TFT circuit ([0069]: e.g. capacitor). In regards to claim 17, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein (i) the micro-device comprises a micro-device tether, (ii) the LED comprises an LED tether, or both (i) and (ii) [0090]. In regards to claim 18, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-device (10) is disposed on (e.g. over) the TFT substrate (20) (fig. 2). In regards to claim 19, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the TFT circuit comprises circuitry formed in one or more of: amorphous silicon (aSi), low-temperature polycrystalline silicon (LTPS), high-temperature polycrystalline silicon (HTPS) [0147], and indium-gallium-zinc-oxide (IGZO). In regards to claim 20, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the TFT circuit comprises (i) circuitry formed in low-temperature polycrystalline silicon (LTPS) [0147], (ii) circuitry formed in indium-gallium-zinc-oxide (IGZO), or (iii) both (i) and (ii). In regards to claim 57, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower further teaches the limitations wherein the micro-circuit comprises a transistor ([0114]: (80) includes transistors). 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(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bower et al. (US 2016/0093600 A1; previously made of record; cited in the prior Office Action dated 23 December 2025; hereinafter Bower’600). In regards to claim 2, Bower teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Bower appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations comprising three different LEDs disposed on the micro-device. Bower’600 teaches the limitations comprising three different LEDs disposed on the micro-device [0118]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Bower with the aforementioned limitations taught by Bower’600 such that three LEDs are disposed on the micro-device to have a resulting system that has a homogeneous appearance resembling a monolithic system (Bower’600 [0118]). In regards to claim 3, the combination of Bower and Bower’600 teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 2. Bower’600 further teaches the limitations wherein the three different LEDs comprise a red LED operable to emit red light, a green LED operable to emit green light, and a blue LED operable to emit blue light [0118]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Bower with the aforementioned limitations taught by Bower’600 such that three LEDs are disposed on the micro-device to have a resulting system that has a homogeneous appearance resembling a monolithic system (Bower’600 [0118]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-20, and 57 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as applied in the prior rejection of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time). 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 (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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. CALVIN CHOI Patent Examiner Art Unit 2812 /CALVIN Y CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §102, §103
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed
May 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Aug 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751127
SEMICONDUCTOR-LAMINATED SUBSTRATE, LIGHT EMITTING COMPONENT, AND MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12751290
DEVICES WITH THROUGH SILICON VIAS, GUARD RINGS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745440
GATE STRUCTURES IN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733479
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT (IC) DEVICE WITH MULTILAYER METAL LINE
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12733480
DEVICE FOR DETECTING AN ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION INCLUDING A THERMAL DETECTOR OVER A READOUT SUBSTRATE AN ACTIVE ELECTRONIC ELEMENT OF WHICH IS LOCATED THE CLOSEST TO THE THERMAL DETECTOR
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.6%)
2y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 869 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month