Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/757,452

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §112§DP
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
GROSS, ALEXANDER P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Coretronic Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
318 granted / 545 resolved
-9.7% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
572
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
56.8%
+16.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 545 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the liquid crystal cell is a horizontal alignment liquid crystal cell.”, this is indefinite in that it contradicts the limitation of “the liquid crystal cell is a vertical alignment liquid crystal cell” recited in claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 11, Winker et al. (USP 5557434, Winker) teaches (in figure 3) a display device, wherein the display device comprises and a display panel (liquid crystal display 300), wherein the display panel comprises a liquid crystal cell (LC cell 360), a first polarizer (polarizer 305), a second polarizer (analyzer 355), and a first phase retardation film (O-plate compensator layer 313); the first polarizer and the second polarizer are respectively disposed at two opposite sides of the liquid crystal cell, and; and the first phase retardation film is disposed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer, wherein an axial direction of an optical axis of the first phase retardation film is inclined with respect to a thickness direction of the first phase retardation film (tilt angle of about 40 degrees see Col. 7 lines 29-32), and the first phase retardation film is directly adjacent to the liquid crystal cell (see figure 3), wherein the first phase retardation film is an O-plate. Iwasaki (US Pub. 20150036086) Iwasaki teaches (in figures 1-2) teaches (in figures 1-2) a display device, wherein the display device comprises and a display panel (first polarizer 1, first compensation film 2, IPS-mode liquid crystal cell 8, and second polarizer 7), wherein the display panel comprises a liquid crystal cell (IPS-mode liquid crystal cell 8), a first polarizer (first polarizer 1), a second polarizer (second polarizer 7), and a first phase retardation film (first compensation film 2); the first polarizer and the second polarizer are respectively disposed at two opposite sides of the liquid crystal cell, and the first phase retardation film is disposed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer, wherein an axial direction of an optical axis of the first phase retardation film is inclined with respect to a thickness direction of the first phase retardation film (tilt angle theta see paragraphs 54 and 86), and the first phase retardation film is directly adjacent to the liquid crystal cell (see figure 1), wherein the first phase retardation film is an O-plate (see paragraph 86). Fang et al. (US Pub. 20180210243 and hereafter Fang’243) teaches (in figures 1 and 7) providing a backlight module (140) as the lowermost layer of a display device (100) in addition to viewing angle switching device (120) and a light scattering switching device (130) wherein the backlight modules comprises a light guide plate (142), a light source (141), and a first optical film (145), the light guide plate has a light incident surface (SI) and a light exit surface (SE) connected to the light incident surface; the light source is disposed at one side of the light incident surface of the light guide plate; and the first optical film is overlapped with the light exit surface of the light guide plate, and has a plurality of first optical microstructures (“prisms” see figure and paragraph 43) facing the light exit surface. However, Winker teaches twisted nematic aligned liquid crystal (Col. 4 line 51- Col. 5 line 2) and providing the first phase retardation film (O-plate) in order to widen the viewing angle (Col. 2 lines 60-67) and Iwasaki teaches a horizontally aligned liquid crystal (paragraph 53) and providing the first phase retardation film (first compensation film 2) in order to correct color correction at wide angles (paragraphs 67-69). As such, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a display in which the liquid crystal cell is a vertical alignment liquid crystal cell or providing a viewing angle limiting optical film overlapped with the display panel and located between the display panel and the backlight module, and the viewing angle limiting optical film comprises a second phase retardation film and a third polarizer, wherein the second phase retardation film is disposed between the third polarizer and the first polarizer in combination with the other required elements of claims 1 and 11 respectively. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12 of applicant’s response, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to claims 1-14 and 17-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under nonstatutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C 103 of claims 1-14 and 17-19 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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. 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 ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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. /ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601901
DETECTION DEVICE FOR A LASER SCANNING MICROSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601907
REFLECTOR SCANNER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596273
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596280
OPTICAL ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587618
Display device with uniform off-axis luminance reduction
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+20.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 545 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