Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/576,110

DISPLAY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 03, 2024
Examiner
CRITE, ANTONIO B
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
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

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Action is responsive to the communication filed on 01/03/2024. 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. 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 4-8 and 10-13 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 4 recites the limitation: “the light source forms a pixel . . . “. However, Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a plurality of light sources.” It is unclear whether “the light source for a pixel” in Claim 4 refers to each of the plurality of light sources form a pixel or the plurality of light sources collectively form a pixel. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to the claims’ dependency to Claim 4. Claim 10 recites the limitation: “the light source is arranged on the non-stretchable portion. . . “. However, Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a plurality of light sources.” It is unclear whether “the light source” in Claim 10 is intended to refer to one of the plurality of light sources or to the plurality of light sources. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to the claims’ dependency to Claim 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwag (US 2022/0037568). Regarding claim 1, Kwag (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 7) discloses a display system comprising: a display 10 including (Para 0063): a plurality of light sources 300 (Para 0063, Para 0064); and a light absorption layer 810 that forms a display surface e.g., top surface of 810 and absorbs external light applied to the display surface e.g., top surface of 810, wherein an opening 820 through which light from the light sources 300 is emitted toward a side of the display surface e.g., top surface of 810 is formed in the light absorption layer 810 (Para 0081, Para 0082, Para 0085). Regarding claim 2, Kwag (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 7) teaches the display system according to claim 1, wherein the light absorption layer 810 has an uneven structure e.g., the uneven structure of 810. Regarding claim 3, Kwag (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 7) teaches the display system according to claim 2, wherein the uneven structure e.g., the uneven structure of 810 includes a structure that suppresses reflection of the external light (Para 0081, Para 0082, Para 0089). Regarding claim 9, Kwag (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 7) teaches the display system according to claim 1, wherein the display has at least one of flexibility or extensibility (Para 0110). 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. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 2022/0037568), in view of Tago (US 2022/0351538). Regarding claim 14, although Kwag shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kwag fails to expressly teach the display system according to claim 1, wherein the display includes a sensor unit that detects a physical quantity on the display surface instead of any of a plurality of the light sources. Tago (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches a display includes a sensor unit 1 (10, 40) that detects a physical quantity on the display surface 122 instead of any of a plurality of the light sources e.g., plurality of sub-pixels within display device 100 for the purpose of detecting blood vessel image of a finger (Para 0026-Para 0027, Para 0033, Para 0036-Para 0038, Para 0048-Para 0050). 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 sensor unit of Tago to the device of Kwag for the purpose of detecting blood vessel image of a finger (Para 0048-Para 0050). Regarding claim 15, Tago (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches a display system according to claim 14, wherein the sensor unit 1 (10, 40) includes at least one of a distance sensor that detects a distance from an object located on the side of the display surface of the display, a luminance sensor that detects luminance of the external light, or a contact sensor 10 that detects contact with the display surface 122 (Para 0026-Para 0027, Para 0033, Para 0036, Para 0048-Para 0050). Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 2022/0037568), in view of Murakami (US 2024/0371170). Regarding claim 16, although Kwag shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kwag fails to expressly teach display system according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of the displays; and a processing unit that executes display processing of an image on a plurality of the displays. Murakami (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches a plurality of the displays e.g., plurality of display devices in display unit 50 (Para 0030); and a processing unit 47 that executes display processing of an image on a plurality of the displays e.g., plurality of display devices in display unit 50 for the purpose executing processing of displaying an image corresponding to the image data on the display unit (Para 0070). 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 processing unit as described by Murakami for the purpose executing processing of displaying an image corresponding to the image data on the display unit (Para 0070). Regarding claim 17, although Kwag shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kwag fails to expressly teach the display system according to claim 16, further comprising an imaging unit that captures the image displayed on a plurality of the displays. Murakami (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches an imaging unit 11 that captures the image displayed on a plurality of the displays e.g., plurality of display devices in display unit 50 for the purpose of capturing an image of a scenery or surroundings (Para 0032, Para 0038, Para 0071). 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 imaging unit as described by Murakami to the device of Kwag for the purpose of capturing an image of a scenery or surroundings (Para 0032, Para 0038, Para 0071). Regarding claim 18, although Kwag shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kwag fails to expressly teach the display system according to claim 17, further comprising a control unit that controls display of the image on a plurality of the displays according to an imaging range of the imaging unit. Murakami (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches a control unit 22 that controls display of the image on a plurality of the displays e.g., plurality of display devices in display unit 50 according to an imaging range of the imaging unit 11 for the purpose of detecting a viewpoint position (Para 0040-Para 0042). 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 control unit as described by Murakami to the device of Kwag for the purpose of detecting a viewpoint position (Para 0042). Regarding claim 19, Murakami (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches display system according to claim 18, further comprising: a display device 50 including a plurality of the displays e.g., plurality of display devices in display unit 50 (Para 0030); a processing device 42 including the processing unit 47 (Para 0049, Para 0070); an imaging device 10 including the imaging unit 11 (Para 0032, Para 0038, Para 0070); and a control device 20 including the control unit 22 (Para 0040-Para 0042). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 2022/0037568), in view of Murakami (US 2024/0371170), in view of Wang (US 2017/0178283). Regarding claim 20, although Kwag/Murakami show substantial features of the claimed invention, Kwag/Murakami fail to expressly teach the display system according to claim 16, further comprising a deformation mechanism that enables deformation of a display device in which a plurality of the displays is arranged, wherein a plurality of the displays has at least one of flexibility or extensibility. Wang (see, e.g., FIG. 2a) teaches a deformation mechanism e.g., deformation mechanism that enables deformation of a display device 220 in which a plurality of the displays 220a is arranged, wherein a plurality of the displays 220a has at least one of flexibility or extensibility for the purpose of deforming the display device to a target screen shape (Para 0046-Para 0050, Para 0068-Para 0070). 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 a deformation mechanism as described by Wang to the device of Kwag/Murakami for the purpose of deforming the display device to a target screen shape (Para 0046). 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

Jan 03, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §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