Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/950,854

DISPLAY DEVICE PROVIDING MIRROR IMAGE AND CONTENT THROUGH MIRROR DISPLAY AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Examiner
TEITELBAUM, MICHAEL E
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
683 granted / 870 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
909
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.4%
+22.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 870 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. 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. 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, 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. Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. WO 2022-065684 (via WIPO translation) hereinafter referred to as Cho in view of Cho et al. WO2022-197089 hereinafter referred to as Cho ‘089 (via WIPO translation). In regards to claim 1, Cho teaches: “A display device comprising: a mirror display comprising a plurality of blocks” Cho paragraph [0074] teaches as shown in FIG. 3A, it is assumed that the mirror display 110 includes m × n pixels. In this case, as shown in (b) of FIG. 3, the region 30 May have a size corresponding to a × b pixels. Figures 14-22 teaches regions as well. “and at least one processor configured to control at least one of a reflectance and display of the plurality of blocks” Cho paragraph [0060] teaches according to an embodiment of the disclosure, the display apparatus 100 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance set for each application. Cho paragraph [0119] teaches the processor 130 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which each application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance corresponding to each application. “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control first blocks among the plurality of blocks to display a content” Cho paragraph [0106] teaches the processor 130 May control the mirror display 110 so that the reflectance of the area in which the weather information 51 is displayed is 50%. “control second blocks among the plurality of blocks to have a first reflectance providing at least a part of a mirror image on a front side of the mirror display” Cho paragraph [0106] teaches the remaining area except for the area where the weather information 51 is displayed on the mirror display 110 May still have a reflectance of 100% “identify a second part of the mirror image corresponding to the first blocks …, and control the first blocks to display the second part of the mirror image and the content by overlapping the content with the second part of the mirror image” Figure 5-8, inter alia, teach overlapping the weather information with the mirror image. Cho does not explicitly teach: “a camera” and “[identify a location] based on an image captured by the camera” Cho ‘089 teaches in [0092] the other first sensor 120 in this revelation may include an image sensor 120, and the processor 140 may acquire a second image corresponding to the user 10 through the image sensor 120. Cho teaches in [0094] the processor 140 can detect the user contained in the second image through the first neural network model and acquire image data for the region containing the user 10. The processor 140 can acquire pose information about the user 10 based on the information about the feature points or skeletons of the user 10 contained in the image data. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Cho in view of Cho’089 to have included the features of “a camera” and “[identify a location] based on an image captured by the camera” because it is necessary to have a technology that improves the visibility of the content/information displayed on the mirror display (Cho ‘089 [0004]). In regards to claim 7, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust a size of the content displayed on the first blocks such that a boundary of the content corresponds to boundaries among the plurality of blocks” Cho paragraph [0194] teach the processor 130 May match the display area of the application with at least one of the plurality of areas by changing at least one of the location and size of the display area of the application so as not to overlap the area where another application is displayed on the mirror display 110. In regards to claim 9, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control at least one third block, among the first blocks, to display a predetermined image in an area excluding an area in which the at least one third block displays the content” Cho paragraph [0181] and Figure 14 teaches the display area 1410 of the application does not match at least one of the plurality of areas of the mirror display 110. As another example, the display region 1420 of the application may be regarded as matching a region including two regions 1430 and 1440 among the plurality of regions. In regards to claim 10, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control a reflectance of the plurality of blocks in block units, and wherein the plurality of blocks have a same size” Cho paragraph [0060] teaches the display apparatus 100 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance set for each application. Cho Figures 14-22 illustrates regions of the same size. In regards to claim 11, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 11 contains similar limitations. Therefore claim 11 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1. In regards to claim 17, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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. /MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 10, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603975
MICRO LED PROJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585205
LOW NUMERICAL APERTURE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576803
Method for Controlling Two or More Comfort Functions of a Vehicle and Vehicle Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575294
SWITCHABLE TRANSPARENT ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE DISPLAYS WITH AN INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC INK LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574606
Remote Control Having Hotkeys with Dynamically Assigned Functions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 870 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