Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/829,888

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 10, 2024
Examiner
HILAIRE, CLIFFORD
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
313 granted / 438 resolved
+13.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
470
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 438 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Applicant(s) Response to Official Action The response filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered and made of record. Response to Arguments/Amendments Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). Claim Interpretation Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended to recite “wherein, in a second mode, the control circuit is configured to short-circuit the first node and the second node, and wherein the first node voltage and the second node voltage are defined with reference to a ground.” Examiner will interpret the “first node” N1 as a grounded node as shown in at least fig. 8 or fig. 11; therefore “to short-circuit the first node and the second node” is equivalent to grounding both nodes. 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su Xu et al. [Fast-Response Liquid Crystal Microlens: already of record] in view of Park Cheol-Woo et al. [US 20080204387 A1: already of record] and further in view of Shengji Yang et al. [US 20170048516 A1] Regarding claim 1, Su teaches: 1. A display device (i.e. Polymeric Lenticular Microlens Array for 2D/3D Switchable Displays- section 2.23.4) comprising: a first electrode (i.e. the indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes, the LC directors will be reoriented material is sandwiched between two substrates coated with electrodes (e.g., indium tin oxide, ITO) and surface alignment layers (e.g., polyimide, PI)- section 2.1, figs. 1 & 7); a liquid crystal layer located on the first electrode (i.e. TNLC- fig. 6 & 7… To overcome these issues, Flack et al. proposed to indirectly actuate the LC lenticular microlens array through a twisted-nematic (TN) LC cell (also called a polarization converter) [1] to achieve 2D/3D switchable displays [73]- section 2.3.4); a second electrode located on the liquid crystal layer (i.e. the indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes, the LC directors will be reoriented material is sandwiched between two substrates coated with electrodes (e.g., indium tin oxide, ITO) and surface alignment layers (e.g., polyimide, PI)- section 2.1, figs. 1 & 7); a lens array located on the second electrode (i.e. fig. polymeric microlens array film- fig. 6 & 7); and wherein, in a second mode (i.e. original 2D display- page 309, section 2.3.4), the control circuit is configured to short-circuit the first node and the second node (i.e. In the voltage-off state, the polarization direction of the incident beam is rotated by 90° after passing through the TN cell, becoming orthogonal to the LC directors in the microlens. As a result, this beam will not be focused because np ~ no. The images from the left pixel and the right pixel can be seen by two eyes at the same time, and the display remains the original 2D display (Figure 6a)- page 309, section 2.3.4). However, Su does not teach explicitly: a control circuit including a first node electrically connected to the first electrode and a second node electrically connected to the second electrode, wherein, in a first mode, the control circuit is configured to apply a first node voltage to the first node, and is configured to apply a second node voltage to the second node, wherein the second node voltage alternates between a high level voltage higher than a voltage level of the first node voltage and a low level voltage lower than the voltage level of the first node voltage. In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches: a control circuit including a first node electrically connected to the first electrode and a second node electrically connected to the second electrode wherein, in a first mode, the control circuit is configured to apply a first node voltage to the first node, and is configured to apply a second node voltage to the second node, wherein the second node voltage alternates between a high level voltage higher than a voltage level of the first node voltage and a low level voltage lower than the voltage level of the first node voltage (i.e. A method of driving a liquid crystal display device, which includes first and second substrates, gate lines on the first substrate, data lines crossing the gate lines to define pixel regions, a thin film transistor connected to each gate line and each data line, a common line between adjacent gate lines, a pixel electrode in each pixel region and overlapping the common line, and a common electrode on the second substrate, includes steps of sequentially applying scanning signals to the gate lines, applying data signals to the data lines to supply the pixel electrode with pixel voltage, applying a common voltage to the common electrode, and applying a storage capacitor voltage to the common line, wherein the pixel voltage and the storage capacitor voltage are alternating current (AC) voltages having positive and negative polarities alternately with respect to the common voltage- Abstract… In FIG. 5, the pixel voltage Vp is applied to the pixel electrode 88, and the common voltage Vcom is applied to a common electrode (not shown), which is formed on a substrate opposite to the array substrate of FIG. 4. A storage capacitor voltage Vstg, which is applied to the common line 76a, 76b, 76c, 76d and 76e of FIG. 4, has the same value as the common voltage Vcom- ¶0038). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Su with the teachings of Park to improve image qualities and productivity (Park- ¶0052). However, Su and Park do not teach explicitly: wherein, in a second mode, the control circuit is configured to short-circuit the first node (i.e. first grating electrodes 101 - ¶0095) and the second node (i.e. second grating electrodes 103- ¶0095), and wherein the first node voltage and the second node voltage are defined with reference to a ground. In the same field of endeavor, Shengji teaches: wherein, in a second mode, the control circuit is configured to short-circuit the first node and the second node, and wherein the first node voltage and the second node voltage are defined with reference to a ground (i.e. As stated above, the electrochromic materials are in transparent state under the equipotential or power-off condition. The electrochromic 3D glasses-free grating will no longer work, and the display device may achieve general 2D display. For instance, if the mode of a 3D grating module must be converted from 3D mode to 2D mode, the first grating electrodes 101 and the second grating electrodes 103 must be all grounded in the 3D display period, but the control method in the touch period may be not changed- ¶0095). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Su and Park with the teachings of Shengji so that the glasses-free 3D display state and the 2D display state can be conveniently switched (Shengji- ¶0116). Regarding claim 2, Su and Park teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Su further teaches: wherein the first mode is a three-dimensional (3D) mode, and the second mode is a two-dimensional (2D) mode (i.e. In the 2D mode, each LC microlens has no focusing effect and the microlens array functions as an optical flat. In the 3D mode, each LC microlens exhibits a focusing effect. By turning on and off the microlens focusing effect, the display can be electrically switched between 2D and 3D modes. Therefore, LC lenticular microlens array has become a key component in switchable 2D/3D displays- page 309, section 2.3.4). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-20 are allowed. Claims 3-10 are 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. 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 CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400. 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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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. CLIFFORD HILAIRE Primary Examiner Art Unit 2488 /CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 10, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602591
TRAINING REINFORCEMENT LEARNING AGENTS USING AUGMENTED TEMPORAL DIFFERENCE LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596427
REWARD GENERATING METHOD FOR REDUCING PEAK LOAD OF POWER CONSUMPTION AND COMPUTING DEVICE FOR PERFORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576797
ROTATING DEVICE FOR DISPLAY OF VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573211
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANEUVER IDENTIFICATION FROM CONDENSED REPRESENTATIONS OF VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568310
TARGET TRACKING DEVICE, TARGET TRACKING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR STORING TARGET TRACKING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
72%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 438 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month