Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/027,136

REGION-BY-REGION ILLUMINATION CONTROL AT DISPLAY DEVICE BASED ON PER-REGION BRIGHTNESS

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
MISHLER, ROBIN J
Art Unit
2628
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Ati Technologies Ulc
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 707 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
735
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
56.4%
+16.4% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 707 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION 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) 21-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le (US 2019/0244572). Regarding claim 21, Le discloses a method comprising: displaying a frame (302, fig. 3) at a display device (see fig. 1, fig. 11) during a frame period (fig. 3), the display device having a plurality of illumination regions (206, fig. 2 and para. 61); initiating during the frame period and based at least in part of a first brightness representation (see average brightness in para. 62-63) associated with a first illumination region of the plurality of illumination regions (para. 62-63; wherein average brightness is maintained in each illumination region), a first illumination strobe (see left 306, fig. 3) at a first temporal position within the frame period for a first illumination region (e.g. left 206 in fig. 2) of the plurality of illumination regions (para. 64, 61); and initiating, during the frame period and based at least in part on a second brightness representation associated with a second illumination region (see average brightness in para. 62-63) of the plurality of illumination regions (para. 62-63; wherein average brightness is maintained in the second illumination region), a second illumination strobe (right 306 in fig. 3) at a second temporal position within the frame period for a second illumination region (right 206 in fig. 2) of the plurality of illumination regions (para. 64, 61), the second temporal position being different than the first temporal position (see fig. 3). Regarding claim 22, Le discloses wherein the first illumination region is adjacent to the second illumination region (see left 206 and right 206 in fig. 2). Regarding claim 23, Le discloses wherein the second temporal position is later in time than the first temporal position (see left 306 and right 306 in fig. 3). Regarding claim 24, Le discloses wherein initiating the first illumination strobe comprises initiating the first illumination strobe at a first illumination level (see leftmost first 506 in fig. 5), and wherein initiating the second illumination strobe comprises initiating the second illumination strobe at a second illumination level (see second 506 in fig. 5) that is different than the first illumination level (see fig. 5 and para. 64, 66; wherein the illumination levels are adjusted by changing the width of the pulse). Regarding claim 25, Le discloses wherein each illumination region of the plurality of illumination regions comprises a subset of one or more rows of the display device (para. 61). Regarding claim 26, Le discloses wherein the first and second temporal positions are based at least in part on a frame rate of the display device (see fig. 3 and para. 63; wherein temporal portions of 306 are located based on the current frame rate, wherein the locations differ between a 240Hz frame rate and a 60Hz frame rate). Regarding claim 27, Le discloses further comprising applying to the first illumination region (para. 83) at least one of a front illumination fill (see left 0.5 in 1504 in fig. 15) preceding the first illumination strobe (see left 0.75 in 1504 in fig. 15) and having a first illumination level (e.g. 0.5 in fig. 15) or a back illumination fill (see 0 in 1504 in fig. 15) following the first illumination strobe and having a second illumination level (e.g. 0 in fig. 15). Regarding claim 28, Le discloses wherein the first illumination level is different than the second illumination level (see fig. 15; wherein 0.75 is different from zero). Regarding claim 29, Le discloses wherein at least one of the first illumination level or the second illumination level is based at least in part on an illumination level of the first illumination strobe (see para. 83-84; wherein the second illumination level 0 is based on the first illumination strobe of 0.75). Regarding claim 30, Le discloses further comprising applying to the second illumination region (para. 83) at least one of a front illumination fill (0 in 1504 in fig. 15) preceding the second illumination strobe (see right 0.75 in 1504 in fig. 15) and having a third illumination level (e.g. 0 in fig. 15) or a back illumination fill (see right 0.5 in 1504 in fig. 15) following the second illumination strobe and having a fourth illumination level (0.5 in fig. 15). Regarding claim 31, Le discloses wherein the first illumination level is different than the third illumination level (para. 64 and fig. 15; wherein the greater the width of the pulse the greater the amount of the amount of BLV’ in fig. 15). Regarding claim 32, Le discloses wherein the second illumination level is different than the fourth illumination level (see fig. 15; wherein 0.5 is different from zero). Claims 33-41 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 21-32, respectively. See above rejections. Regarding claim 42, Le discloses wherein the front illumination level (is different for the at least two of the plurality of illumination regions (see 1504 in fig. 15 and para. 64; wherein the front fill 0.05 in 1504 is different from the other front fill zero in fig. 15). Regarding claim 43, Le discloses wherein the back illumination level is different for the at least two of the plurality of illumination regions (see 1504 in fig. 15 and para. 64; wherein the back fill zero in 1504 is different from the other back fill 0.5 in fig. 15). Regarding claim 44, Le discloses wherein the respective temporal position comprises an indicated respective starting time within the frame period (see 306 in fig. 3). Claims 45-56 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 21-29 and 42-44, respectively. See above rejections. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F. 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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Feb 05, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 30, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598714
LOCKING STRUCTURE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596453
TOUCH SENSOR AND A METHOD FOR DETECTING A USER'S TOUCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585351
TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568688
DISPLAY DEVICE AND TILED DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567184
VIDEO PROCESSING METHOD, APPARATUS AND DEVICE
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
69%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+5.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 707 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