Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/919,344

VR LUMINANCE-OPTIMIZED LCD DESIGN SEEN THROUGH THE LENS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Examiner
CHIEN, LUCY P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC
OA Round
2 (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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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. 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) 1-5,7,10-13,15,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 20230408826) in view of Rao et al (US 11573445) Regarding Claim 1, Oh et al discloses a (Fig. 1-6) near-eye display (NED) comprising: a display panel (80,180) including a plurality of regions (“each pixel has a first region and a second region” column 1, lines 35-40), wherein: each region includes respective black matrix elements (320), and the respective black matrix elements are shifted (column 12, lines 7-16) with respect to corresponding light shield structures by respective offsets that vary for the plurality of region, wherein each offset is determined using a luminance angle specific to a respective region of the plurality of regions that corresponds to respective chief ray angle specific to the respective region of the plurality of regions (column 1, lines 30-50); and display optics configured to project images to a user’s eye. Oh et al does not disclose light shield structures as TFT related structures. Rao et al discloses that TFT electrodes on an opposing substrate function as light shield structures relative to black matrix elements in an LCD panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Oh et al’s region dependent black matrix offset technique in the LCD structure of Roa et al, because both references address controlling light leakage and luminance uniformity, combining these two references merely applies a known angular-compensation technique to a known LCD panel structure. Regarding Claim 2, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 34) the display panel includes a liquid crystal display panel that includes a black matrix (3432) formed on a first substrate (TFT Array) and light shield structures (the TFT electrodes and associated light blocking structures form on the second substrate (TFT substrate) functions as alight shield structure). Regarding Claim 3, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein an amount of shift gradually increases from a center region of the display panel to peripheral regions of the display panel. Regarding Claim 4, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein an amount of shift gradually increases from a center region of the display panel to peripheral regions of the display panel along a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, or a radial direction. Regarding Claim 5, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Rao et al discloses (Fig.2b) the LCD panel includes thin-film transistor circuits (230) formed on the second substrate (240); and the light shield structures include electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits (265). Regarding Claim 7, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Rao et al discloses (Fig.2b) wherein the light shield structures (320) include light shields above or below the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits (240), the light shields aligned with the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits. Regarding Claim 10, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses wherein the display optics include one or more lenses [0109]. Regarding Claim 11, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 34) A display assembly: a first assembly including a first substrate (TFT Array) and light shield structures (3432) formed on the first substrate; a second assembly including a second substrate (CF/BM Array) and black matrix elements (3442) formed on the second substrate; and a liquid crystal layer (LC) between the first assembly and the second assembly, wherein: black matrix elements (3432) at a center region of the display panel align with corresponding light shield structures (3442) on the first substrate; and black matrix elements (3432) at peripheral regions of the display panel are offset with respect to corresponding light shield structures on the first substrate, the offset being determined using a peak luminance angel specific to a respective peripheral region of the peripheral regions that corresponds to a respective chief ray angle specific to the respective peripheral region of the peripheral regions (column 1, lines 30-50). Regarding Claim 12, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein an amount of offset of the black matrix elements with respect to the light shield structures gradually increases from the center region of the display panel to the peripheral regions of the display panel. Regarding Claim 13, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein the amount of offset gradually increases from the center region of the display panel to the peripheral regions of the display panel along a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, or radial direction. Regarding Claim 15, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein the black matrix elements include a first plurality of black matrix elements along a first direction, the first plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch that gradually decreases and then gradually increases along the first direction. Regarding Claim 17, Oh et al discloses a (Fig. 1-6) A method of improving brightness uniformity of a near-eye display (NED), the method comprising, for each region of a plurality of regions (“each pixel has a first region and a second region” column 1, lines 35-40)of a liquid crystal display panel of the near-eye display: determining a chief ray angle (column 1, lines 30-50) of the region seen through display optics of the near-eye display; determining using a peak luminance angle specific to the region that corresponds to the chief ray angle of the region, an offset between black matrix elements (320) on a first substrate (TFT Array) of the LCD panel and light shield structures (electrodes) on a second substrate (CF/BM Array) of the LCD panel at the region and shifting (column 12, lines 7-16) the black matrix elements (320) with respect to the light shield structures at the region based on the determined offset. Oh et al does not disclose light shield structures as TFT related structures. Rao et al discloses that TFT electrodes on an opposing substrate function as light shield structures relative to black matrix elements in an LCD panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Oh et al’s region dependent black matrix offset technique in the LCD structure of Roa et al, because both references address controlling light leakage and luminance uniformity, combining these two references merely applies a known angular-compensation technique to a known LCD panel structure. Regarding Claim 18, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Roa et al discloses wherein the light shield structures on the second substrate include gate electrodes of thin-film transistor circuits (TFT. Gate and source electrodes) formed on the second substrate, source electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits, top light shields, bottom light shields, or a combination thereof. Regarding Claim 19, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Oh et al discloses (Fig. 5D) wherein the offset gradually increases from a center region of the LCD panel to peripheral regions of the LCD panel along a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, or a radial direction. Regarding Claim 20, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al, Roa et al discloses (Fig. 2b) the light shield structures include: a first plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 2b, 240); and the black matrix elements include: a first plurality of black matrix elements positioned along the first direction (Fig. 5d), the first plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch along the first direction; and a second plurality of black matrix elements positioned along the second direction, the second plurality of black matrix (Although neither references explicitly describes nonuniform pitch in both directions, it would have been obvious o apply the nonuniform pitch taught by Roa et al in both orthogonal directions when implementing the two dimensional luminance compensation taught by Oh et al, as doing so presents a predictable design choice to achieve region specific optical performance.. 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) 6,16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 20230408826) and of Rao et al (US 11573445) in view of Han (US 20150177884) Regarding Claim 6, Oh et al and Roa et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Oh et al and Roa et al does not disclose wherein the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits include: a first plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. Han discloses (Fig. 8a) wherein the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits include: a first plurality of electrodes (815) uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes (811) uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oh et al and Roa et al’s first plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction motivated by the desire to provide an efficient fingerprinted sensing region by increasing the sensitivity of the touch sensor [0052][0077]. Regarding Claim 16, In addition to Oh et al and Roa et al and Han, Han discloses wherein the black matrix elements further include a second plurality of black matrix elements along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, the second plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch along the second direction (Abstract). Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 20230408826) and of Rao et al (US 11573445) in view of Kim et al (US 20130155504) Regarding Claim 8,9, Oh et al and Roa et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Oh et al and Roa et al does not disclose wherein the black matrix elements include a first plurality of black matrix elements along a first direction, the first plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch that gradually decreases and then gradually increases along the first direction. Kim et al discloses (Fig. 26) wherein the black matrix elements (165) include a first plurality of black matrix elements along a first direction, the first plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch that gradually decreases and then gradually increases along the first direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oh et al and Roa et al to include Kim et al’s black matrix elements include a first plurality of black matrix elements along a first direction, the first plurality of black matrix elements having a nonuniform pitch that gradually decreases and then gradually increases along the first direction [0118] motivated by the desire to improve luminance uniformity and widen the viewable ranges of the display panel. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US 20230408826) and of Rao et al (US 11573445) in view of Han (US 20150177884) Regarding Claim 14, Oh et al and Roa et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Oh et al and Roa et al does not disclose wherein the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits include: a first plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. Han discloses (Fig. 8a) the first assembly includes thin-film transistor circuits [0043] formed on the first substrate; and the light shield structures (130) include electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits, the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits wherein the electrodes of the thin-film transistor circuits include: a first plurality of electrodes (815) uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes (811) uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oh et al and Roa et al to include Han’s first plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a first direction; and a second plurality of electrodes uniformly positioned along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction motivated by the desire to provide an efficient fingerprinted sensing region by increasing the sensitivity of the touch sensor [0052][0077]. 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 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 17, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 13, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
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
Moderate
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