Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/082,788

SMART PHONE, A TABLET, OR A COMPUTER SCREEN WITH AN INFINITY SCREEN

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 16, 2022
Examiner
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
636 granted / 969 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 969 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 . Claim Objections Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 and 5 should be corrected as indicated/noted below in the next response to the office action. For examining purposes, the claims below will be relied upon. 3. (Previously Presented) A computer monitor comprising an infinity glass screen and adjustable LED light bulbs, placed inside the computer monitor, wherein a computer connected to said monitor and controls said monitor comprises an app to turn the LED lights on and off. (Typo with the underline. This should not be underlined as it’s “Previously Presented” – see 9/5/25 amendment). 5. (Currently Amended) A tablet comprising an infinity glass screen and adjustable LED light bulbs, placed inside the tablet, wherein the tablet comprises an app to turn the LED lights on and off. (A “t” should be added at the end of “table”, however the wherein portion should not be underlined as it was previously presented – see 9/5/25 amendment). Appropriate correction is required. 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, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 2022/0373160 A1 - relying on provisional 63/190914) in view of O’Brien (US 2013/0043788 A1). Regarding claim 1, Stephens et al. teaches a smart phone(paragraph [0038] discloses smartphone comprising an infinity glass screen (enhanced infinity mirror 100; see paragraph [0038]) and adjustable LED light bulbs (LEDs; see paragraph [0008] where controllable LEDs are disclosed), placed inside the phone display (see paragraph [0015-0016] where display 220 is disclosed) Stephens et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the smartphone comprises an app to turn the LED lights on and off, however O’Brien teaches a smartphone and smartphone display [0042] “invention provides a mobile app for controlling the lighting devices from a smartphone. A user may download and install the mobile app onto their phone. To operate the LED light of the invention, the user performs, for example, a touch-screen gesture within the mobile app.”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Stephens et al. to include an app to turn the LED lights on and off as taught by O’Brien as an alternative way of controlling the operation of the light emitting diodes. Regarding claim 3, Stephens et al. teaches an electronic display [computer monitor] comprising an infinity glass screen ([0008] Each of the different interchangeable infinity mirror chambers may include an infinity mirror with an embedded strip, grid, or other set of controllable LEDs, lasers, or other illumination sources (e.g., display screens)) and adjustable LED light bulbs (LEDs; see paragraph [0008] where controllable LEDs are disclosed), placed inside the electronic display [computer monitor] (see paragraph [0015] where the components and/or circuitry for the enhanced infinity mirror may be housed in the interchangeable base, paragraph [0016] discloses the interchangeable base 120 may include a set of physical controls 210, a display 220 and paragraph [0020] discloses a user device (e.g., a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, desktop computer, remote control, etc.) may execute an application that presents the same or similar menu system as the interchangeable base 120 on a separate display of the user device) Stephens et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a computer monitor comprises an app to turn the LED lights on and off, however O’Brien teaches a computer which comprises a screen/monitor [0042] “invention provides a mobile app for controlling the lighting devices from a computer. A user may download and install the mobile app onto their phone. To operate the LED light of the invention, the user performs, for example, a touch-screen gesture within the mobile app.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Stephens et al. to include an app to turn the LED lights on and off as taught by O’Brien as an alternative way of controlling the operation of the light emitting diodes. Regarding claim 5, Stephens et al. teaches a tablet (see paragraph [0020] where a user device (e.g., a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, desktop computer, remote control, etc.) is disclosed) comprising an infinity glass screen (see paragraph [0008] where each of the different interchangeable infinity mirror chambers may include an infinity mirror with an embedded strip, grid, or other set of controllable LEDs, lasers, or other illumination sources (e.g., display screens)) and adjustable LED light bulbs (LEDs; see paragraph [0002] where infinity mirror may include a set of light emitting diodes ("LEDs")), placed inside the tablet (see [0015] where the components and/or circuitry for the enhanced infinity mirror may be housed in the interchangeable base. And paragraph [0016] where the interchangeable base 120 may include a set of physical controls 210, a display 220. And further see paragraph [0020] where a user device (e.g., a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, desktop computer, remote control, etc.) may execute an application that presents the same or similar menu system as the interchangeable base 120 on a separate display of the user device). Stephens et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the tablet comprises an app to turn the LED lights on and off, however O’Brien teaches a smartphone and smartphone display [0042] “invention provides a mobile app for controlling the lighting devices from a smartphone. A user may download and install the mobile app onto their phone. To operate the LED light of the invention, the user performs, for example, a touch-screen gesture within the mobile app.”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Stephens et al. to include an app to turn the LED lights on and off as taught by O’Brien as an alternative way of controlling the operation of the light emitting diodes. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that it would not have been obvious as a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art of record, Stephens et al. (US 2022/0373160 A1 (relying on provisional application 63/190,914) infinity screen and O’Brien (US 2013/0043788 A1), which teaches using an app to turn on LED lights on smart phone. Applicant does not specifically point out or explain but merely states that it’s not obvious to combine the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art of record, Stephens et al. teaches controllable LEDs in paragraph [0008] of the specification. Since the LEDs are controllable, an alternative way of controlling the LEDs would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. And controlling the LEDs with an app, as taught by O’Brien, is merely an obvious design choice and one way that the controllable LEDs can be controlled. Therefore, claims 1, 3 and 5 remain rejected as unpatentable over Stephens (US 2022/0373160 A1 - relying on provisional 63/190914) in view of O’Brien (US 2013/0043788 A1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsai (US 20190208665 A1) teaches an app for a smart phone to control operation LEDs. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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. /JESSICA M APENTENG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 07, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585155
BACKLIGHT PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584605
LAMP FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578576
FRONT LIGHTING OF A DISPLAY FOR A WEARABLE E-READER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570206
AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557703
ILLUMINATOR, ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING DEVICE, AND ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 969 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month