Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/938,593

Display with a privacy viewing mode including a film-based lightguide backlight between a first backlight and a transmissive display

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 06, 2024
Priority
Nov 10, 2023 — provisional 63/597,751
Examiner
WILLIAMS, JOSEPH L
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Azumo Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
786 granted / 950 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
960
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
59.7%
+19.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 950 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the display of claim 4, which does not have an air gap, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). All of the examples appear to have an air gap (for example parts 3416 and 2401). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the legalese language “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nichol et al. (US 2024/0302580) . The applied reference has a common inventor and Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding independent claim 1, Nichol et al. (‘580) teaches in figure 37, paragraph 0214, and the abstract, a display (4600) comprising: a transmissive spatial light modulator (4602- please note throughout the text, the references teaches the light modulator can be refractive of transmissive) with an active area (no number but where the viewing arrows 4603 and 4605 are located); a first backlight (4604) positioned to illuminate the transmissive spatial light modulator; and a second backlight (4606) positioned between (the curved part on the right edge between 4604 and 4602) the first backlight and the transmissive spatial light modulator, wherein the second backlight comprises a film-based lightguide emitting light with a smaller average angular full width at half-maximum luminous intensity in a light output plane than the first backlight (see abstract). Regarding dependent claim 2, Nichol et al. (‘580) teaches the transmissive spatial light modulator is a transmissive liquid crystal display. Regarding dependent claim 3, Nichol et al. (‘580) teaches the first backlight is a direct-lit backlight with electronically configurable spatially varying light output across a first light output surface of the first backlight (see last three lines of paragraph 0214). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record neither shows nor suggest the display does not comprise an air gap between the second backlight and the transmissive liquid crystal display, along with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon US 2003/0086032 teaches the state of the art for lcd display devices. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 5:00 PM. 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, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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. JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12685170
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677564
COLOR CONVERSION SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12666763
LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12666807
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12666849
DISPLAY PANEL, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE DISPLAY PANEL, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE DISPLAY PANEL
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 4m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 950 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