Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/267,920

MIRROR DISPLAY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
CRITE, ANTONIO B
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
AMS-OSRAM AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
351 granted / 435 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -12% lift
Without
With
+-11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
466
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 435 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/16/2023. 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation reciting “each of said semiconductor optoelectronic components . . . overhanging said mirror surface” recited in Claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to because the flow chart of Figure 9 does not provide a method for manufacturing a mirror display according to the proposed principle disclosed at least in page 21 – page 23 of Applicants’ Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a second plurality of optoelectronic components” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the claimed invention recites a second plurality of optoelectronic components without claiming a first plurality of optoelectronic components. Therefore, Claim 1 has been rendered indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the emission surface" (emphasis added) in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to the claims’ dependency to Claim 1. Claim 12, which depends from Claim 1, recites the limitation: “mirror display . . . further comprising at least one of: . . . a protective glass arranged in front of the mirror surface and the transparent protective layer in plan view” (emphasis added). In the scenario where “a protective glass arranged in front of the mirror surface and the transparent protective layer in plan view” is the only option selected, the limitation “the transparent protective layer” in lines 9-10 does not have sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 15, which depends from Claim 1 and Claim 14, recites the limitation: “a third plurality of transparent areas” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the claimed invention recites a third plurality of transparent areas without claiming a first plurality of transparent areas and a second plurality of transparent areas. Therefore, Claim 15 has been rendered indefinite. Claim 20, which depends from Claim 19, recites the limitation "the support substrate" (emphasis added) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21, which depends from Claim 19, recites the limitation "the support substrate" (emphasis added) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (US 2021/0020619), in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0400982). Regrading claim 19, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 1) discloses a method of manufacturing a mirror display, comprising the steps of: providing a carrier substrate 71, e.g., silicon substrate (see also FIG. 6) (Para 0071, Para 0099); providing a plurality of optoelectronic semiconductors 14, 31; 14, 32; 14, 33 (Para 0048, Para 0050); forming a drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 (see also FIG. 6) with the plurality of semiconductor optoelectronic components 14, 31; 14, 32; 14, 33 so that they are placed at dedicated positions of the drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and electrically connected to leads 74 of the drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 (Para 0099); forming a mirror surface e.g., top and side surfaces of 34 having a mirror layer 34 and a plurality of recesses e.g., space between adjacent 34 electrically insulated on said drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, each of said semiconductor optoelectronic components 14, 31; 14, 32; 14, 33 being located in a plan view in one of said plurality of recesses e.g., space between adjacent 34 and thereby overhanging e.g., extending over side surface of 34 said mirror surface e.g., top and side surfaces of 34 (Para 0051, Para 0076, Para 0080-Para 0081). Although Iguchi shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi fails to expressly teach that the substrate is transparent. Iguchi does, however, teach that substrate 71 is a silicon substrate (Para 0071, Para 0099). Kobayashi (see, e.g., FIG. 2), on the other hand, teaches a display device with a first base material 10a utilized as a transparent substate such as a quartz substrate, a silicon substrate, and a glass substrate (Para 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either silicon substrate or a quartz substrate as the carrier substrate in Iguch’s device because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as substrates, as taught by Kobayashi, and selecting between known equivalents through simple substitution would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (US 2021/0020619), in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0400982), and further in view of Lim (US 2021/0296604), in view of Su (US 2019/0096831). Regarding claim 22, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 1) discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the step of forming a mirror surface e.g., top and side surfaces of 34 comprises: depositing a reflective material 34L (Para 0103; see also FIG. 7); Although Iguchi/Kobayashi show substantial features of the claimed invention, Iguchi/Kobayashi fail to expressly teach depositing a reflective material; in particular comprising silver; applying and patterning a photoresist such that the photoresist is removed over a plurality of areas; removing the reflective material in the plurality of areas to create the plurality of recesses. Iguchi does, however, teach depositing a reflective material 34L, in particular aluminum (Para 0107). Lim (see, e.g., FIG. 4), on the other hand, teaches a reflective material 403 comprising aluminum or silver (Para 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either aluminum or silver as the reflective material in Iguchi’s device because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as reflective layers, as taught by Lim, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Lim (see, e.g., FIG. 4) teaches depositing a reflective material 403 (Para 0082); in particular silver (Para 0063, Para 0082); applying and patterning a photoresist (not shown) such that the photoresist (not shown) is removed over a plurality of areas 410a, 420a, 430a (Para 0082); removing the reflective material 403 in the plurality of areas 410a, 420a, 430a to create the plurality of recesses e.g., spaces between adjacent portions of 403 (Para 0082). Su, on the other hand, teaches that patterning using suitable processes provides desired patterns after the photoresist is removed (Para 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of applying and patterning a photoresist such that the photoresist is removed over a plurality of areas; and removing the reflective material in the plurality of areas to create the plurality of recesses as described by Lim to the method steps of Iguchi for the purpose of providing desired patterns to the underlying layers (Su: Para 0022). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18, as written, would be allowable but for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as being indefiniteness to Claims 1-18. Remarks Regarding claim 1, Iguchi (see, e.g., FIG. 1) discloses a mirror display comprising: a mirror surface e.g., top and side surfaces of 34 having a mirror layer 34 comprising a first plurality of spaced apart recesses, e.g., spaces between adjacent 34 (Para 0051, Para 0076, Para 0080-Para 0081); a optoelectronic components 14, 31; 14, 32; 14, 33 disposed on a drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 (see also FIG. 6) comprising at least leads 74 for driving the optoelectronic components 14, 31; 14, 32; 14, 33 (Para 0099); wherein the mirror layer e.g., top and side surfaces of 34 is arranged in an electrically insulated manner on the drive layer 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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. /ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604763
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A PLURALITY OF COMPONENTS, COMPONENT, AND COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593548
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588325
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588318
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588342
LIGHT-EMITTING PLATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (-11.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 435 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