Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/703,335

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 20, 2024
Examiner
DABBI, JYOTSNA V
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Beijing Shiyan Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
333 granted / 541 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
579
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 541 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Drawings The drawings with 9 Sheets of Figs. 1-12 received on 4/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Preliminary Amendment The amendments to Claims 5,7,8,15,17,20,21,23,24, in the submission filed 4/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Cancellation of Claims 16,18-19,22 is acknowledged and accepted. The amendments to the Abstract are acknowledged and accepted. Pending Claims are 1-15,17,20-21,23-24. 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. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1,8-12,21,23-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodgate et al (US 6,377,295 B1, of record). Regarding Claim 1, Woodgate teaches (fig 1b,4) a display device (display apparatus), comprising: a display panel (SLM 1, col 6, lines 9-11, LCD 1, col 7), comprising a plurality of pixel repetition units (7, pixel repetition unit marked by dashed box, fig 2) arranged in an array along a row direction and a column direction, wherein each of the pixel repetition units (each pixel may be a composite pixel comprising a red pixel 12, a blue pixel 13 and a green pixel 14. The pixels are arranged such that they are contiguous in the horizontal direction and first 4 composite pixels is a pixel repetition unit) comprises a plurality of pixel islands (each pixel island made of plurality sub-pixels 12,13,14) arranged consecutively in the column direction (along Y direction, as in fig 3), each of the pixel islands (pixel islands made of 12,13,14) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (sub-pixels 12,13,14) arranged to be spaced apart from each other in the row direction (X direction), the plurality of pixel repetition units (first 4 composite pixels is a pixel repetition unit, fig 4) comprise a plurality of pixel repetition unit rows (each row of fig 4) arranged in the column direction (as in fig 4), and the sub-pixels in one pixel repetition unit row (four pixels 12,13,14, col 7, lines 9-12) of a pair of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows (pixel repetition rows as in fig 4) of at least some of pairs of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows are staggered relative to the sub-pixels in the other pixel repetition unit row of the pair of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows in the row direction (X direction) (staggered as in fig 4, also col 7, lines 50-65); a light splitting assembly (front lenticular screen 2, col 7, lines 18-30), positioned on a display side of the display panel (SLM 1, col 6, lines 9-11, LCD 1, col 7)and comprising a plurality of light splitting repetition units (light repetition unit is considered to be made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 4 shows only 2 but the next lenticule as in fig 1 is also taken in one repletion unit) which extend in the column direction (Y direction) and are consecutively arranged in the row direction (X direction) (as in fig 4), wherein each of the light splitting repetition units (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1,4) comprise M light splitting structures (M=3) which extend in the column direction (Y direction) and are consecutively arranged in the row direction (X direction), and each light splitting repetition unit (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1,4) corresponds to N columns of the sub-pixels (N=4) in each pixel repetition unit row, where each of M and N is an integer greater than 1, and M is coprime with N (M=3, N=4 and hence they are coprime numbers). Regarding Claim 8, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein each light splitting repetition unit (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1,4) corresponds to K columns (k= 4 as each light splitting structure has 4 units) of pixel islands in each pixel repetition unit row, where K is an integer greater than 1. Regarding Claim 9, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 8, wherein N (N=4) is coprime with K (K=4). Regarding Claim 10, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 8, wherein N/K is an integer (N=4, K=4 and N/K =1). Regarding Claim 11, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 10, wherein each of the pixel islands comprises n sub-pixels (n=1, fig 4) arranged to be spaced apart from each other in the row direction, where n is an integer greater than 1; and each light splitting repetition unit corresponds to and covers K columns (K=4) of pixel islands in at least part of pixel repetition unit rows, and N = K X n (N=4 times 1= 4), where K is an integer greater than 1, and M (M=3) is coprime with K (k=3). Regarding Claim 12, Woodgate teach the display device according to claim 8, wherein outgoing light emitted from light emitting regions of N columns (N=4) of sub- pixels in each pixel repetition unit row (first 4 composite pixels is a pixel repetition unit) and then split by M (M=3) light splitting structures forms a continuous light emitting region in a space (“Because the vertical apertures of the pixels are constant, movement of an observer eye within each viewing window does not give rise to any undesirable visual artefacts. In particular, the image brightness is substantially constant so that no flicker or changes in brightness occur as an observer moves.”, col 8, lines 7-13) Regarding Claim 21, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a spacer dielectric layer (spacer between SLM 1 and screen 2, fig 1b, spacers are made of either glass, plastic, quartz materials which are all dielectric in nature) positioned between the light splitting assembly (front lenticular screen 2, col 7, lines 18-30) and the display panel (SLM 1, col 6, lines 9-11, LCD 1, col 7), wherein each of the light splitting structures is one of a geometric lens, a diffractive lens, a liquid crystal lens or a liquid lens (“The lenticular screen 2 comprises a plurality of vertically extending lenticules, each of which is optically cylindrically converging. The lenticules extend vertically and may be formed, for instance, as piano-convex cylindrical lenses as graded refractive index (GRIN) cylindrical lenses, or as diffractive optical elements”, col 7, lines 20-25). Regarding Claim 23, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein each of the pixel repetition units (first 4 composite pixels is a pixel repetition unit, fig 4) comprises three pixel islands (three pixel islands along the row, each made of subpixels 12,13,14, respectively, fig 4) arranged consecutively in the column direction; and in each pixel repetition unit, the sub-pixels of a same pixel island have a same display color (top pixel island made of sub pixels 12 has same color, middle pixel island has subpixels 13 of different color and last row has a third color, fig 4), and the sub-pixels of different pixel islands have different display colors (each row in a pixel island has different color due to each row made of either 12 or 13 or 14 subpixels). Regarding Claim 24, Woodgate teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display device further comprises: an eye tracking system (observer tracking directional display, col 2, lines 55-56) for determining a position of an eye of a user in real time. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7,13-15,17,20, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 2 is allowable for at least the reason: “ in each subunit, a ratio Jj of a staggered vector by which a c-th sub-pixel in a j-th pixel repetition unit row is staggered relative to the c-th sub-pixel in a first pixel repetition unit row in the row direction to a width of each sub-pixel in the row direction satisfies Jj = ±E/M, where c is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to N, j is an integer greater than 1 and less than or equal to M, and E is an integer greater than or equal to 1, not equal to M, and not equal to an integer multiple of M.” Claims 3-7,20, are dependent on claim 2 and hence allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 2. Claim 13 is allowable for at least the reason: “wherein in the row direction, a width of M splitting structures is equal to a width of N columns of sub-pixels.” Claims 14-15,17, are dependent on claim 13 and hence allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 13. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al (WO 2022/198455 A1, of record) teaches (fig 1,3) a display device (display apparatus), comprising: a display panel (display panel 6, para 66), comprising a plurality of pixel repetition units (7, pixel repetition unit marked by dashed box, fig 2) arranged in an array along a row direction and a column direction, wherein each of the pixel repetition units (7, pixel repetition unit marked by dashed box, fig 3) comprises a plurality of pixel islands (pixel islands 8, para 66) arranged consecutively in the column direction (along Y direction, as in fig 3), each of the pixel islands (pixel islands 8) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (sub-pixels 1R, 1G, 1B) arranged to be spaced apart from each other in the row direction (X direction) (“Each of the pixel islands includes at least four sub-pixels which have the same color”, para 66), the plurality of pixel repetition units (7, pixel repetition unit marked by dashed box, fig 3) comprise a plurality of pixel repetition unit rows arranged in the column direction (display panel 6 has pixel unit made of pixel islands repeatedly in the row and column directions, fig 3 is illustrative of one pixel repetition unit 7), and the sub-pixels in one pixel repetition unit row (7, pixel repetition unit marked by dashed box, fig 3) of a pair of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows of at least some of pairs of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows are staggered relative to the sub-pixels in the other pixel repetition unit row of the pair of adjacent two pixel repetition unit rows in the row direction (staggered in vertical direction as in fig 3);a light splitting assembly (cylindrical lens structure 12, para 68), positioned on a display side of the display panel (display panel 6, para 66) and comprising a plurality of light splitting repetition units (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1) which extend in the column direction (Y direction) and are consecutively arranged in the row direction (X direction) (as in fig 3), wherein each of the light splitting repetition units (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1) comprise M light splitting structures (“the cylindrical lens structure 12 includes multiple cylindrical lenses 4 arranged in an array”, M=3, para 68) which extend in the column direction (Y direction) and are consecutively arranged in the row direction (X direction), and each light splitting repetition unit (light repetition unit made of 3 light splitting structures, fig 1) corresponds to N columns of the sub-pixels (N=4) in each pixel repetition unit row, where each of M and N is an integer greater than 1, and M is coprime with N (M=3, N=4 and hence they are coprime numbers). The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. /JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/21/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596218
Holographic Wide Angle Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596329
HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591084
POLARIZING PLATE AND OPTICAL DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585100
APPARATUS AND METHOD TO CONVERT A REGULAR BRIGHT-FIELD MICROSCOPE INTO A PS-QPI SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585053
SCREEN PROVIDED WITH RETROREFLECTIVE MICROSTRUCTURES
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
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 541 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