Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/902,948

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 01, 2024
Examiner
CHIEN, LUCY P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Carux Technology Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 898 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
932
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 898 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1,5,9,11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) in view of Chen et al (US 11611058) Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa et al discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 5) a cover plate (CG); a display panel (PNL), disposed under the cover plate (CG); a sensor ((SE) sensor is in the XA region coated with the sealant 50) , disposed under the cover plate (CG); wherein the display panel having a first portion overlaps the sensor (sensor region aligned with display opening XA) and a second portion (non sensor display region, everywhere else except where XA is located) does not overlap the sensor; and an optical structure (14), disposed under the cover plate (CG) and comprising a polarizer (PL1), and a blocking wall (20) is disposed at a boundary of the first portion (XA) and the second portion (everywhere else except where XA is located), wherein the blocking wall (20) including a light-shielding material. Ishikawa et al does not disclose the optical structure further comprises a quarter wave plate, nor that the quarter wave plate is disposed between the polarizer and the sensor. Chen et al discloses (Fig. 3) an optical structure comprising a polarizer and a quarter wave plate (QWP), wherein the quarter wave pate (QWP) is disposed between the polarizer (330) and the sensor (310), in order to control polarization characteristics and improve sensing accuracy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Ishikawa et al to include Chen et al’s quarter wave plate arrangement to improve optical performance and sensing reliability. Regarding Claim 5, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, Ishikawa et al discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 5) discloses wherein the optical structure further comprises: a second adhesive layer (21), disposed between the polarizer (PL2) and the cover plate (CG). Regarding Claim 9, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, Ishikawa et al discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 5) discloses the polarizer (PL2) overlaps the display panel (PNL) and the sensor (SE). Regarding Claim 11, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, Chen et al discloses wherein the display device comprises a display region and a peripheral region, and the sensor is disposed in the display region.(column 11, lines 16-24) Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Lee et al (US 20220165189) Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses wherein the sensor is configured to sense image information of at least one of infrared light and visible light. Lee et al discloses wherein the sensor is configured to sense image information of at least one of infrared light and visible light [0079]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Lee et al’s sensor is configured to sense image information of at least one of infrared light and visible light motivated by the desire to provide a camera that can generate image information [0079]. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Park et al (US 20210199984) Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses a first adhesive layer, disposed between the quarter wave plate and the polarizer. Park et al discloses a first adhesive layer, disposed between the quarter wave plate and the polarizer.[0058] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Park et al’s adhesive layer in between the quarter waveplate and the polarizer motivated by the desire to prevent the loss of the light due to the rapid change in the refractive index.[0058] Claim(s) 4,6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) and of Park et al (US 20210199984) in view of Kitano (US 20170029677) Regarding Claim 4,6, Ishikawa et al, Chen et al and Park et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al, Chen et al and Park et al does not discloses wherein the first adhesive layer is doped with dye or colored particles. Kitano discloses wherein the first adhesive layer is doped with dye or colored particles [0184]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al, Chen et al and Park et al to include Kitano’s first adhesive layer is doped with dye or colored particles [0184] motivated by the desire to add to the composition in order to impart decorations or the like. Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Fleischman et al (US 20210036265) Regarding Claim 7, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses a surface treatment layer, disposed on a surface of the quarter-wave plate away from the cover plate. Fleischman et al discloses a surface treatment layer, disposed on a surface of the quarter-wave plate away from the cover plate [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Fleischman et al’s surface treatment layer, disposed on a surface of the quarter-wave plate away from the cover plate [0046] motivated by the desire help enhance display contrast [0018]. Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of He et al (US 20180314871) Regarding Claim 10, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses wherein the display device comprises a display region and a peripheral region, and the sensor is disposed in the peripheral region. He et al discloses wherein the display device comprises a display region and a peripheral region, and the sensor is disposed in the peripheral region [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include He et al’s display device comprises a display region and a peripheral region, and the sensor is disposed in the peripheral region motivated by the desire to receive and detect a finger to obtain fingerprint information [0030]. Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Angeles et al (US 20220401954) Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses wherein the display panel has a hollow region in the display region, and the sensor is disposed in the hollow region. Angeles et al discloses the sensor is disposed in the hollow region [0236]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Angeles et al’s sensor disposed in the hollow region motivated by the desire to measure temperatures located where the holes are [0236]. Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Lim, Jae-ik et al (CN 115955872A) Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above including wherein the sensor is disposed between the display panel and the cover plate. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not disclose a portion of the display panel that overlaps the sensor and a portion of the display panel that does not overlap the sensor have different stacking structures. Lim, Jae-ik et al (Drawing 2) discloses wherein a portion of the display panel that overlaps the sensor (TPA, 330) and a portion of the display panel (300) that does not overlap the sensor (330) have different stacking structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Lim, Jae-ik et al’s a portion of the display panel that overlaps the sensor and a portion of the display panel that does not overlap the sensor have different stacking structures motivated by the desire to improve image display efficiency (background). Regarding Claim 14, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al and Lim, Jae-ik et al, Lim,Jae-ik et al discloses wherein the portion of the display panel (TSA) that overlaps the sensor (330) comprises a light-transmitting layer, and the portion of the display panel that does not overlap the sensor comprises at least two of a light-transmitting layer, a non-light-transmitting layer, and a light-modulating layer. Regarding Claim 15, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, and Lim, Jae-ik et al, Lim,Jae-ik et al discloses wherein the display panel is a liquid crystal display panel and the display panel further comprises: a blocking wall, disposed at a boundary between the portion of the display panel that overlaps the sensor (330) and the portion of the display panel (TSA) that does not overlap the sensor (330). Claim(s) 16,17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Choi Hae Rang (KR 102073000B1) Regarding Claim 16, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses a ink layer, disposed between the display panel and the cover plate or on a surface of the cover plate away from the display panel, and overlapping the sensor. Choi Hae Rang discloses a ink layer (blocking layer 50), disposed between the display panel and the cover plate or on a surface of the cover plate away from the display panel, and overlapping the sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Choi Hae Rang’s a ink layer (blocking layer 50) motivated by the desire prevent light saturation and increase recognition rate to enable accurate position information determination (…”The blocking layer 50 is a kind of reflective film formed at the rear of the pattern layer 20 and is similar to a film for protecting privacy. The blocking layer 50 reflects a part of the light emitted from the imaging device and blocks the light from being transmitted forward. The light transmittance of the blocking layer 50 is preferably 65 to 90%. When the light transmittance is less than 65%, the visibility and brightness of the display screen are reduced, so that writing is hard to be seen, and when the light transmittance exceeds 90%, As a result, the recognition rate of the sensor decreases and the image of the dot pattern is distorted, making accurate reading of the position information difficult. As such, the blocking layer 50 is provided directly in front of the imaging device, so that the reflectance of the light incident from the imaging device increases, so that about 65 to 90% of the light emitted from the imaging device is transmitted to the front. In addition, light saturation can be prevented so that the recognition rate of the electronic pen can be increased to enable accurate position information determination and positioning of the dot pattern by the electronic pen…”) Regarding Claim 17, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al and Choi Hae Rang, Choi Hae Rang discloses wherein a transmittance of the ink layer (50) for visible light is greater than or equal to 30% and less than or equal to 95%, greater than or equal to 40% and less than or equal to 95%, greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 95%, greater than or equal to 60% and less than or equal to 95%, or greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 95%.(…”The blocking layer 50 is a kind of reflective film formed at the rear of the pattern layer 20 and is similar to a film for protecting privacy. The blocking layer 50 reflects a part of the light emitted from the imaging device and blocks the light from being transmitted forward. The light transmittance of the blocking layer 50 is preferably 65 to 90%. When the light transmittance is less than 65%, the visibility and brightness of the display screen are reduced, so that writing is hard to be seen, and when the light transmittance exceeds 90%, As a result, the recognition rate of the sensor decreases and the image of the dot pattern is distorted, making accurate reading of the position information difficult. As such, the blocking layer 50 is provided directly in front of the imaging device, so that the reflectance of the light incident from the imaging device increases, so that about 65 to 90% of the light emitted from the imaging device is transmitted to the front. In addition, light saturation can be prevented so that the recognition rate of the electronic pen can be increased to enable accurate position information determination and positioning of the dot pattern by the electronic pen…”) Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) and of Choi Hae Rang (KR 102073000B1) in view of Wang et al (US 20140132861) Regarding Claim 18, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, and Choi Hae Rang discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, and Choi Hae Rang does not disclose a decorative layer, disposed under the cover plate and having a first opening exposing the display panel and a second opening exposing the sensor, wherein the ink layer is disposed in the second opening and located between the optical structure and the cover plate. Wang et al disclose a decorative layer, disposed under the cover plate and having a first opening exposing the display panel and a second opening exposing the sensor, wherein the ink layer is disposed in the second opening and located between the optical structure and the cover plate [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al, and Choi Hae Rang to include Wang et al’s decorative layer, disposed under the cover plate and having a first opening exposing the display panel and a second opening exposing the sensor, wherein the ink layer is disposed in the second opening and located between the optical structure and the cover plate motivated by the desire to have a cover layer above the decorative layer to protect the decorative layer and avoid problems of scratching and breakage of the decorative layer [0033]. Regarding Claim 19, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al Choi Hae Rang, and Wang et al, Wang et al disclose a decorative layer [0033], disposed under the cover plate and having a first opening exposing the display panel and a second opening exposing the sensor, wherein the ink layer is disposed corresponding to the second opening, and the cover plate is located between the optical structure and the ink layer. Regarding Claim 20, In addition to Ishikawa et al and Chen et al Choi Hae Rang, and Wang et al, Wang et al disclose [0033] a decorative layer, disposed under the cover plate and having an opening exposing the display panel, wherein the ink layer is disposed in the opening and is located between the optical structure and the cover plate. Claim(s) 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US 12007642) and of Chen et al (US 11611058) in view of Vastmans et al (US 20160098913) Regarding Claim 21, Ishikawa et al and Chen et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Ishikawa et al and Chen et al does not discloses a sleeve, configured to fix the sensor, wherein the sleeve is fixed under the optical structure away from the cover plate. Vastmans et al discloses a sleeve, configured to fix the sensor, wherein the sleeve is fixed under the optical structure away from the cover plate [ABSTRACT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa et al and Chen et al to include Vastmans et al sleeve, configured to fix the sensor, wherein the sleeve is fixed under the optical structure away from the cover plate [ABSTRACT) motivated by the desire to keep the sensor mounted to an element to keep it from moving. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 01, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601944
DISPLAY MODULE, DRIVING METHOD, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592204
STACKED-SCREEN DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591159
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585049
ACHROMATIC OPTICAL RELAY ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585113
LAMINATED GLASS AND HEAD-UP DISPLAY SYSTEM
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
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 898 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