Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/723,403

SEAMLESS TILING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 21, 2024
Priority
Dec 23, 2021 — provisional 63/293,473 +1 more
Examiner
ADAMS, CARL
Art Unit
2627
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
VueReal Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
570 granted / 794 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
816
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
86.7%
+46.7% vs TC avg
§102
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§112
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 794 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see below). 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. Claim1 – 13 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari (US Pub. No. 2006/0077126 A1) in view of Lamkin et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0246098 A1). As to claims 1 and 33, Kothari shows an optoelectronic system (i.e. display array, Figs. 1, 8, 11A and 11 B and paras. 28, 29 and 81), and associated methodology comprising: connecting an array of tiles (i.e. modulator displays, Figs. 1, 11A and 11B and paras. 29 and 74) wherein each tile has a substrate 20 and an array of pixels (i.e. 12a and 12b, Fig. 1 and paras. 29 – 31); distributing signals between pixels in row and column direction (via electrical connection device 125, Fig. 11A and para. 78) wherein each signal is connected to two pads on the opposite sides of the tile substrate (Figs. 1 and 11A and para. 78); and connecting pads 625 between adjacent tiles by forming traces 616 (Fig. 8 and paras. 56 – 58). Kothari does not show that the traces bridge the pads together. Lamkin shows that traces bridge adjacent modular display pads together (Figs. 23 and 24 and para. 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Kothari with those of Lamkin because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide serial connection between adjacent pads (para. 116). As to claim 2, Kothari shows that the tiles are assembled on a system substrate (i.e. backplate, for example, Fig. 11B and para. 86). As to claim 3, Kothari shows that the traces connect the pads of adjacent tiles through traces in the system substrate (Figs. 11A and 11B). As to claim 4, Kothari shows that the traces connect the tiles to the signals through traces on the system substrate (Figs. 11A and 11B). As to claim 5, Kothari shows that a bezel in the tile is reduced by moving the pads into a pixel area (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 6, Kothari shows that a circuit in pixels with pads is moved away from the pads towards an opposite direction (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 7, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a left side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a right hand side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 8, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a right side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a left hand side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 9, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a top side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a bottom side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 10, Kothari shows that if the pads are on a bottom side of the array, the circuit in the pixel is moved closer to a top side of the pixel (Figs. 11A and 11B and paras. 82 – 86). As to claim 11, Kothari shows that for pixels at corners, corresponding circuits are moved towards the opposite direction away from the corners (Figs. 11A and 11B). As to claim 12, Kothari shows that a position of microdevices in the pixel area is adjusted to be substantially in the center of the pixel area so that the position of microdevices across the array is consistent (Fig. 11A). As to claim 13, Kothari shows that to increase a tolerance of an image quality or captured data to the position of microdevices, a reflector 16a/16b is added under the microdevice that is larger than the microdevice area (Fig. 1 and paras. 29 – 32). 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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST. 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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. /CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 30, 2026
Interview Requested
May 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12663630
TILING LIGHT SHEET MICROSCOPE AND IMAGING METHOD OF A SAMPLE
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12664944
DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY CONTROLLER, AND DISPLAY DRIVING METHOD
1y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12656899
Electronic Devices With Display and Touch Sensor Structures
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12650798
DISPLAY DEVICE AND CASCADE CONTROL METHOD
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12646466
STAGE AND EMISSION CONTROL DRIVER HAVING THE SAME
1y 8m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 7m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 794 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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