Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/352,642

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
KHATRI, PRASHANT J
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shanghai Tianma Micro-Electronics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
515 granted / 849 resolved
-4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
888
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 849 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION In response to RCE filed 4/2/2026. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 are pending. Claim 6 is amended. Claim 8 was cancelled. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2019-019054) in view of Fisher et al. (US 20150140301). Inoue discloses a vehicle display device that has excellent impact resistance. Concerning claim 1, Inoue discloses the vehicle display device comprises a cover glass that is attached to a display panel (FIG. 2; para. 0012-0036). However, Inoue is silent to a cover glass having the properties as claimed. With respect to claim 4, the display panel can be a touch panel which would include the layers to allow to function as a touch panel (para. 0047); as such, the touch panel would intrinsically detect a contact position. However, Inoue is silent to a cover glass having the properties as claimed. Fisher discloses a thin glass laminate for use in electronics and automotive , wherein each glass sheet has a thickness not exceeding 0.5 mm with a PVB adhesive disposed therebetween, resulting in a pummel value from 7 to 10 (para. 0021-0069). Examiner notes that since the pummel value of the laminate is the same and the materials for each layer are the same, the PVB of Fisher would have the claimed pummel value. Given that the PVB layers are the same and as such, have the claimed pummel values. With respect to claim 9, the glass outer glass sheets are Gorilla Glass® which are chemically tempered. The thin glass laminate of Fisher allows for high adhesion between the glass sheets and the PVB layer that allows for high penetration resistance and post-breakage glass retention properties (para. 0009 and 0067). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thin glass laminate of Fisher as the cover glass for Inoue. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 7 allowed. The prior art is silent to the combination of elements as claimed. Namely, the specific combination of the pummel values and the thickness of each glass layer as claimed along with the relationship between each layer as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 regarding the art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the PVB of the Fisher reference is not necessarily the same as that disclosed in the instant claims and disclosure because PVB adhesion can be altered by pressure, temperature, moisture amount at the time at adhesion, and presence or absence of additives in PVB. While this may be true, Applicant has not shown how the PVB of Fisher differs with respect to the claimed PVB given that the pummel adhesion is within the claimed range. Further, Applicant has not shown that these conditions or processes with respect to the PVB of Fisher are present. As such, the rejection is maintained for the above reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM. 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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. PRASHANT J. KHATRI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1783 /PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604426
COVER PLATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604654
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599971
COATED CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594743
ANTI-GLARE FILM, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND USE OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595268
ACID ANHYDRIDE COMPOUND, AND POLYAMIDEIMIDE RESIN AND FILM USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.9%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 849 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