Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/016,264

VIBRATION PANEL AND TOUCH DISPLAY APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 13, 2023
Priority
Feb 24, 2022 — nonprovisional of PCTCN2022077758
Examiner
MATTHEWS, ANDRE L
Art Unit
2621
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
329 granted / 529 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
554
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
70.9%
+30.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 529 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 22-23 are 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. Claim 22 recite “wherein, a touch surface of the touch display panel is far away from the vibration panel”. The term “far away” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is not clear what is meant by “far away” and where the vibration panel would be disposed with respect to the touch surface to meet the limitation of “far away”. Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-21 are allowed. Conclusion 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. /ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 05, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 28, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12711889
CONTROL OF THE IMAGE REPRODUCTION OF A DISPLAY APPARATUS
4y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12710863
DISPLAY CONTROL APPARATUS, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, AND DISPLAY CONTROL PROGRAM
1y 5m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12699497
VIRTUAL USER INPUT CONTROLS IN A MIXED REALITY ENVIRONMENT
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12693824
DISPLAY METHOD, CHIP, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688804
TEST SYSTEM, METHOD OF TESTING DISPLAY CELL USING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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
62%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+14.5%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 529 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