Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/571,802

PHASE GRATING LIQUID CRYSTAL (PGLC) DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 19, 2023
Examiner
CHIEN, LUCY P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Corning Incorporated
OA Round
4 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 898 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
932
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 898 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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) 1-6,8-11,13-19 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 § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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. Claim(s) 1-3,6,8-11,13,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Hong (US 20050078256) Regarding Claim 1, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) a transparent substrate (218); a first electrode (213) on the transparent substrate; a second electrode (214) on the transparent substrate; and a liquid crystal (LC) layer (230) on the first and second electrodes; wherein the first electrode (213) includes a first bus line (213a) extending in a first direction parallel to an upper surface of the transparent substrate, and a plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) connected to the first bus line (213a) and extending thereform in a triangular wave structure (as shown zigzagging), wherein the second electrode (214) includes a second bus line (214a) extending in the first direction, and a plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) connected to the second bus line (214a) and extending therefrom in a triangular wave structure (as shown zigzagged), and wherein the first and second electrodes (213,214) are at the same level with respect to the transparent substrate (218); wherein the first and second bus lines (213a,214a) are spaced apart from each other with the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) interposed therebetween, and wherein the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) are alternately arranged with each other such that at least one of the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) is disposed between two neighboring ones of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b). Regarding Claim 2, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein the first (213) and second electrodes (214) are configured to form a periodic electric field over the entire transparent substrate (218). Regarding Claim 3, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein the first (213) and second electrodes (214) are configured to form a periodic liquid crystal alignment distribution over the liquid crystal layer (230). Regarding Claim 6, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein each of the first (213) and second electrodes (214) contacts the transparent substrate (218) (contacts through the drain electrode and gate insulater 220). Regarding Claim 8, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) device include only a single cell composed of the first (213) and second electrodes (214). Regarding Claim 9, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein each of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214) extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to an upper surface of the transparent substrate (218), and wherein the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) are alternately arranged along the first direction. Regarding Claim 10, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) the transparent substrate (218) includes a straight edge oblique with respect to the second direction. Regarding Claim 11, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) the transparent substrate (218) includes a straight edge perpendicular to the second direction. Regarding Claim 13, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein each of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and each of the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) has a comb structure. Regarding Claim 15, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein each of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) includes first portions and second portions alternately connected to each other, and wherein the first portions and the second portions are oblique with respect to each other. Regarding Claim 16, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) wherein each of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) includes first portions and second portions alternately connected to each other, and wherein the first portions and second portions are perpendicular to each other. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20050078256) in view of Miyake (US 20180324375) Regarding Claim 4, Hong discloses everything as disclosed above. Hong does not disclose wherein a first supply voltage is applied to the first electrode and a second supply voltage less than the first voltage is applied to the second electrode. Miyake discloses wherein a first supply voltage is applied to the first electrode and a second supply voltage less than the first voltage is applied to the second electrode (ABSTRACT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong to include Miyake’s first supply voltage is applied to the first electrode and a second supply voltage less than the first voltage is applied to the second electrode (ABSTRACT) motivated by the desire to reduce the occurrence of high-luminance after-image in imaging elements has been anticipated [0004]. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20050078256) in view of Letocart (US 20110167617) Regarding Claim 5, Hong discloses everything as disclosed above. Hong does not disclose wherein the PGLC device is in a hazy state by applying the first and second power voltages. Letocart discloses wherein the PGLC device is in a hazy state by applying the first and second power voltages.[0065] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong to include Letocart’s hazy state motivated by the desire to use the dimmer function for a display.[0065] Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20050078256) in view of Hyodo (US 20160161754) Regarding Claim 14, Hong discloses everything as disclosed above. Hong does not disclose each of the plurality of first branch electrodes and each of the plurality of second branch electrodes has a wavy structure. Hyodo discloses (Fig. 22)[0089] each of the plurality of first branch electrodes and each of the plurality of second branch electrodes has a wavy structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong to include Hyodo’s wavy electrodes motivated by the desire to prevent moire appearing on the 3d image. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20050078256) in view of Lee (US 20070139572) Regarding Claim 17, Hong discloses (Fig. 2 to Fig. 3) a transparent substrate (218); a first electrode (213) on the transparent substrate; a second electrode (214) on the transparent substrate; and a liquid crystal (LC) layer (230) on the first and second electrodes; wherein the first electrode (213) includes a first bus line (213a) extending in a first direction parallel to an upper surface of the transparent substrate, and a plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) connected to the first bus line (213a) and extending thereform in a triangular wave structure (as shown zigzagging), wherein the second electrode (214) includes a second bus line (214a) extending in the first direction, and a plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) connected to the second bus line (214a) and extending therefrom in a triangular wave structure (as shown zigzagged), and wherein the first and second electrodes (213,214) are at the same level with respect to the transparent substrate (218); wherein the first and second bus lines (213a,214a) are spaced apart from each other with the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) interposed therebetween, and wherein the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) are alternately arranged with each other such that at least one of the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) is disposed between two neighboring ones of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b). Lin does not disclose depositing and patterning, through a metal lithography process Lee discloses depositing and patterning, through a metal lithography process [0091] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include Lee’s depositing and patterning, through a metal lithography process motivated by the desire to create the patterns required. Claim(s) 18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20050078256) and of Lee (US 20070139572) in view of Gan (US 20170153504) Regarding Claim 18, Hong and Lee discloses everything as disclosed above. Hong and Lee does not disclose wherein the first and second electrodes are formed simultaneously. Gan discloses the first and second electrodes are formed simultaneously [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong and Lee to include Gan’s second electrodes are formed simultaneously [0040] motivated by the desire to prevent increasing the cost of manufacturing the display.[0040] Regarding Claim 19, In addition to Hong, Lee and Gan, Hong (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) discloses wherein each of the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and each of the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to an upper surface of the transparent substrate (218), and wherein the plurality of first branch electrodes (213b) and the plurality of second branch electrodes (214b) are alternately arranged along the first direction. Conclusion 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 LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 13, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601944
DISPLAY MODULE, DRIVING METHOD, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592204
STACKED-SCREEN DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591159
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585049
ACHROMATIC OPTICAL RELAY ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585113
LAMINATED GLASS AND HEAD-UP DISPLAY SYSTEM
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 898 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