Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/040,692

PLANAR ILLUMINATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 08, 2023
Examiner
SANTIAGO, MARICELI
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Minebea Mitsumi Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
816 granted / 1013 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1038
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1013 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Amendment Receipt of the Amendment, filed on August 12, 2025, is acknowledged. Cancellation of claims 2-9 and 11 has been entered. Claims 1, 10 and 12-25 are pending in the instant application. Claims 13-18 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2014/0204281 A1, of record) in view of Shimizu (US 2013/0148036 A1, of record). Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a planar illumination device (Fig. 2) comprising: a substrate (18) provided with a plurality of light sources (17) at one surface side; a reflector (62, ¶[0061]) provided at the one surface side of the substrate; and an optical sheet (15) provided at an emission surface side of the reflector, wherein the reflector (62) covers a periphery of the optical sheet (15, Fig. 2), and the reflector (62) includes an inclined side wall at a periphery, the inclined side wall decreasing in width from the substrate side toward the optical sheet side (Fig. 2), wherein the substrate (18), the reflector (62), and the optical sheet (15) are housed in a housing (14), wherein at least a part of along side direction end part of the optical sheet (15) is supported by a step part (63) provided at the emission surface side of the inclined side wall (Fig. 2), and the inclined side wall is located adjacent to a short side direction end part of the optical sheet (reflector 62 inclined side wall is frame-like, thus provided along and adjacent to both long and short direction end parts of the housing, see Fig. 2 and ¶s[0050, 0057]). Maeda fails to disclose the reflector includes a plurality of reflecting parts surrounding each light source of the plurality of light sources. Shimizu discloses a planar illumination device (Fig. 4) comprising: a substrate (30) provided with a plurality of light sources (28) at one surface side; a reflector (26) provided at the one surface side of the substrate; and an optical sheet (18) provided at an emission surface side of the reflector, wherein the reflector (26) covers a periphery of the optical sheet (Fig. 4), and the reflector (26) includes an inclined side wall at a periphery, the inclined side wall decreasing in width from the substrate side toward the optical sheet side (Fig. 4), wherein the substrate (30), the reflector (26), and the optical sheet (18) are housed in a housing (Fig. 1), and wherein the reflector includes a plurality of reflecting parts (26a, 26b) surrounding each light source of the plurality of light sources to allow the light that is emitted from each light source and reaching each inclined surface of the plurality of reflecting parts to be directed toward the front side by the inclined surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate plurality of reflecting parts surrounding each light source as disclosed by Shimizu in the illumination device of Maeda in order to allow the light that is emitted from each light source and reaching each inclined surface of the plurality of reflecting parts to be directed toward the front side by the inclined surface. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 and 19-25 are allowed over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim(s) 10, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 10, and specifically comprising the limitation of at least a part of along side direction end part of the optical sheet is supported by a step part provided at the emission surface side of the inclined side wall, a step part is not provided at an inclined side wall located at short side direction end parts, and the inclined side wall is located adjacent to a short side direction end part of the optical sheet. Regarding claim(s) 19-25, claims(s) 19-25 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 10 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 10. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. 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. Conclusion The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. 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, Jessica Han, can be reached on (571) 272-2078. 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. /Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 31, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 09, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604644
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588394
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588358
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581800
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581805
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1013 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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