Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/246,815

DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner
WILSON, DOUGLAS M
Art Unit
2622
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
320 granted / 427 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 427 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Claims 1-19 are pending. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,366,943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application Claim anticipates the examined application Claim. MPEP 804.II.B.2 states: nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where a claim in an application under examination claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter claimed in a prior patent or a copending application. The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). US Patent Application 19/246,815 (Examined Application) US Patent 12,366,943 (Reference Application) Claim 1 A display substrate, comprising: a base substrate, comprising a display region and a non-display region on a side of the display region; an encapsulation dam, located in the non-display region and arranged around the display region; an organic insulating layer on the base substrate; wherein the organic insulating layer has a groove structure, and the groove structure is disposed on a side of the encapsulation darn facing away from the display region; a touch structure on a side of the organic insulating layer facing away from the base substrate, wherein the touch structure comprises a plurality of touch lines extending to the non-display region; an inorganic insulating layer on the base substrate, wherein the inorganic insulating layer has a hollowed-out structure on the side of the encapsulation dam away from the display region, and the hollowed-out structure covers the groove structure and does not overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of touch lines on the base substrate; and a plurality of floating lines in the non-display region; wherein the plurality of touch lines are divided into at least one group of touch lines, and the plurality of floating lines are located on at least one of two sides of the at least one group of touch lines; and the touch structure further comprises a plurality of touch electrodes and a plurality of bridging portions in the display region; and the plurality of floating lines are arranged in at least one of the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located or the layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located. Claim 7 A display substrate, comprising: a base substrate, comprising a display region and a non-display region on a side of the display region; an encapsulation dam, located in the non-display region and arranged around the display region, wherein an orthographic projection of the encapsulation dam on the base substrate does not overlap with the display region; an organic insulating layer on the base substrate; wherein the organic insulating layer has a groove structure, and the groove structure is disposed on a side of the encapsulation dam facing away from the display region; wherein the non-display region comprises a bending region, and the groove structure is located between the encapsulation dam and the bending region; a touch structure on a side of the organic insulating layer facing away from the base substrate, wherein the touch structure comprises a plurality of touch lines extending to the non-display region; and an inorganic insulating layer at the side of the organic insulating layer facing away from the base substrate, wherein the inorganic insulating layer has a hollowed-out structure exposing the groove structure on the side of the encapsulation dam away from the display region, and an orthographic projection of the hollowed-out structure does not overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of touch lines on the base substrate, wherein the touch structure further comprises: a plurality of touch electrodes and a plurality of bridging portions in the display region; wherein each touch line comprises: a first part disposed in a same layer as the plurality of touch electrodes, and a second part disposed in a same layer as the plurality of bridging portions and electrically connected with the first part; the plurality of touch electrodes are electrically connected with the plurality of touch lines, and each bridging portion is electrically connected with two touch electrodes correspondingly; and the inorganic insulating layer is located between a layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located and a layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located further comprising: at least one floating line in the non-display region; wherein the plurality of touch lines are divided into at least one group of touch lines, and the at least one floating line is located on at least one of two sides of the at least one group of touch lines, wherein the plurality of touch lines are divided into two groups of touch lines, the at least one floating line is plural, and the plurality of floating lines are located at two sides of each group of touch lines respectively, wherein the plurality of floating lines are arranged in at least one of the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located or the layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US 2021/0343812) in view of Yamanaka (US 2021/0265429) and Kajita (US 2020/0278585). All reference is to Okazaki unless indicated otherwise. Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Okazaki teaches a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate [fig. 1 @10], comprising a display region [fig. 1 @DA] and a non-display region [fig. 1 @NA] on a side of the display region; an encapsulation dam [fig. 1 @9b], located in the non-display region and arranged around the display region [¶0041, “In the frame region NA, a first frame-shaped bank (a first projection) 9a surrounding the display region DA in a frame shape and a second frame-shaped bank (a second projection) 9b surrounding the first frame-shaped bank 9a in a frame shape are provided on the second interlayer insulating film 20”]; an organic insulating layer [fig. 5 @30] on the base substrate [fig. 5 @12, fig. 1 teaches 12 is positioned above fig. 1 @1033]; wherein the organic insulating layer [fig. 5 @30] has a groove structure [fig. 5 @ removed portion of 30 to form S5], and the groove structure [fig. 5 @S5] is disposed on a side of the encapsulation [figs. 1 and 5 @DA] dam [fig. 1 @9b] facing away from the display region [¶0041 teaches first and second inorganic films are adjacent in side of fig. 1 @9b away from DA, fig. 1 @28 and 26 correspond to fig. 5 @8 and 7 on L2 side of 9b, ¶0041, the first inorganic sealing film 26 and the second inorganic scaling film 28, which are inorganic films, are in direct contact with each other on the outer side of the inclined side surface on the left side of the second frame-shaped bank 9b and form a sealing layer”]; an inorganic insulating layer [fig. 5 @8] on the base substrate [fig. 5 @12], wherein the inorganic insulating layer [fig. 5 @8] has a hollowed-out structure [fig. 5 @(portion of 8 removed to form S5)] on the side of the encapsulation dam [fig. 1 @9b, ¶0041] away from the display region [fig. 5 @DA], and the hollowed-out structure [fig. 5 @(portion of 8 removed to form S5)] covers the groove structure [fig. 5 @ removed portion of 30 to form S5] and does not overlap [figs. 1 and 5 teach S5 does not overlap TW1-TWn] with orthographic projections of the plurality of wiring lines [fig. 1 @TW1-TWn] on the base substrate [fig. 1 @10] Okazaki does not teach a touch structure on a side of the organic insulating layer facing away from the base substrate, wherein the touch structure comprises a plurality of touch lines extending to the non-display region; and a plurality of wiring lines are touch lines; a plurality of floating lines in the non-display region; wherein the plurality of touch lines are divided into at least one group of touch lines, and the plurality of floating lines are located on at least one of two sides of the at least one group of touch lines; and the touch structure further comprises a plurality of touch electrodes and a plurality of bridging portions in the display region; and the plurality of floating lines are arranged in at least one of the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located or the layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located Yamanaka teaches a touch structure [fig. 1 @321, fig. 3 @TP] on a side of the organic insulating layer [¶0042, “The organic insulation film 27 is a transparent organic film that exhibits a planarization effect”] facing away from the base substrate [fig. 1 @12], wherein the touch structure [fig. 3 @TP] comprises a plurality of touch lines [fig. @32] extending to the non-display region [fig. 3 @NA]; and a plurality of wiring lines [fig. 3 @32] are touch lines [¶0021, “The touch panel layer TP contains touch-panel-use lines 32”] Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to incorporate a touch structure comprising touch signal lines extending to the non-display regions, as taught by Yamanaka into the display substrate taught by Okazaki in order to create an integrated touch screen that detects user input while suppressing the progression of substrate cracks, for each film, in the different films forming a layered structure of the touch screen device to improve reliability (Okazaki: ¶0008) Okazaki in view of Yamanaka does not teach a plurality of floating lines in the non-display region; wherein the plurality of touch lines are divided into at least one group of touch lines, and the plurality of floating lines are located on at least one of two sides of the at least one group of touch lines; and the touch structure further comprises a plurality of touch electrodes and a plurality of bridging portions in the display region; and the plurality of floating lines are arranged in at least one of the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located or the layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located Kajita teaches a plurality of floating lines [fig. 3 @dmyT] in the non-display region [fig. 3 illustrates each dmyT line extends above and below the display area]; wherein a plurality of touch lines [fig. 3 @60-7 to 60-18] are divided into at least one group of touch lines [fig. 3 @ (60-7 to 60-12) column 2 sensors and (60-13 to 60-18) column 3 sensors], and the plurality of floating lines are located at two sides of each group of touch lines respectively [fig. 3 illustrates the claimed structure]; the touch structure further comprises a plurality of touch electrodes [fig. 6 @30, ¶0046, “common electrode 30 is also a touch electrode”] and a plurality of bridging portions [fig. 6 @124a] in the display region; and the plurality of floating lines [fig. 3 @60A] are arranged in at least one of the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located [¶0104, “dummy touch line 60A formed in the same layer as touch line 60”] or the layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located [alternate limitation not addressed] Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate guard lines on each side of group of touch lines, as taught by Kajita, into the display panel taught by Okazaki in view of Yamanaka in order reduce the influence of voltage changes on adjacent touch line groups a particular touch line group, thereby improving the touch signal fidelity. Regarding Claim 18 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita teaches the display substrate according to Claim 1, wherein the display substrate is integrated into a display panel [¶0046, “Liquid crystal display device 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment is a liquid crystal display panel having a touch sensing function based on a self-capacitive capacitance method”]. Regarding Claim 19 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita teaches the display panel according to Claim 18, wherein the display panel is integrated into a display apparatus [¶0051, “In the present exemplary embodiment, liquid crystal display device 1”]. Claims 2-3, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita, and Kim (US 2022/0382401). All reference is to Okazaki unless otherwise indicated. Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita teaches the display substrate according to Claim 1, wherein Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita does not teach each touch line comprises: a first part disposed in a same layer as the plurality of touch electrodes, and a second part disposed in a same layer as the plurality of bridging portions and electrically connected with the first part; the plurality of touch electrodes are electrically connected with the plurality of touch lines, and each bridging portion is electrically connected with two touch electrodes correspondingly; and the inorganic insulating layer is located between a layer where the plurality of touch electrodes are located and a layer where the plurality of bridging portions are located Kim teaches each touch line [fig. 7 @TL] comprises: a first part [fig. 7 @TL] disposed in a same layer [figs. 7 and 8 @290] as the plurality of touch electrodes [fig. 8 @TE], and a second part [fig. 8 @conductor in CT1] disposed in a same layer [fig. 8 @290] as the plurality of bridging portions [fig. 4 @BE] and electrically connected with the first part [¶0077, “A first touch electrode TE, disposed in one side end among first touch electrodes TE connected to each other in the first direction (e.g., the x-axis direction), may be connected to a first touch line TL. The first touch line TL may be connected to the first touch driver 181 through a first touch pad TP. Therefore, the first touch electrodes TE, connected to each other in the first direction (e.g., the x-axis direction), may receive a touch driving signal from the first touch driver 181 through the first touch line TL”]; the plurality of touch electrodes are electrically connected with the plurality of touch lines [¶0077], and each bridging portion [fig. 4 illustrates BE connecting two TE] is electrically connected with two touch electrodes correspondingly; and the inorganic insulating layer [fig. 8 @290, ¶0123, “The touch insulation layer 290 may include a touch inorganic layer and a touch organic layer”] is located between a layer where the plurality of touch electrodes [fig. 8 @TE] are located and a layer where the plurality of bridging portions [fig. 8 @BE] are located Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of touch electrodes in a first direction connected with bridge electrodes, as taught by Kim, into the display substrate taught by Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita in order to dispose a touch electrode matrix in the same layer reduce the touch sensor thickness. Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim teaches the display substrate according to Claim 2, wherein the plurality of bridging portions [Kim: fig. 8 @BE] are located between the layer where the plurality of touch electrodes [Kim: fig. 8 @TE and RE] are located and the organic insulating layer [Kim: fig. 8 @282]. Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim teaches the display substrate according to Claim 2, wherein the plurality of touch lines comprise a plurality of touch driving lines [Kim: ¶0055, fig. 4 @TL connected to each row of TE] and a plurality of touch sensing lines [Kim: ¶0055, fig. 4 @RL connected to each column of RE]; the plurality of touch electrodes comprise: a plurality of touch driving electrodes [Kim: fig. 4 @TE] arranged in the first direction [x], and a plurality of touch sensing electrodes [Kim: fig. 4 @RE] arranged in the second direction [y]; and each touch driving line is electrically connected with one row of touch driving electrodes [Kim: fig. 4 illustrates claimed structure], and each touch sensing line is electrically connected with one column of touch sensing electrodes [Kim: fig. 4 illustrates claimed structure]. Regarding Claim 16 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita teaches the display substrate according to Claim 1 Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita does not teach the organic insulating layer comprises: a planarization layer; and a pixel defining layer on a side of the planarization layer facing away from the base substrate Kim teaches an organic insulating layer [¶0099 teaches 270 is an organic material, ¶0095 teaches planarization layer 250 may be formed, e.g., of an organic layer”] comprises a planarization layer [fig. 6 @250]; and a pixel defining layer [fig. 6 @270] on a side of the planarization layer facing away from the base substrate [¶0099, “The bank 270 may be provided on the planarization layer 250 to divide the first electrode 261, for acting as a pixel defining layer that defines a plurality of subpixels SP … The bank 270 may be formed, e.g., of an organic layer, such as acryl resin, epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyamide resin, polyimide resin, or the like”] Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an organic pixel definition layer above an organic planarization layer, as taught by Kim, intro the display substrate, taught by Okazaki in view of Yamanaka and Kajita, in order to form key substrate structures using organic materials which can be placed on the substrate using an inkjet printing process vice the more complicated vapor deposition process used to form inorganic structures on a display substrate. Regarding Claim 17 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim teaches the display substrate according to Claim 16, wherein the planarization layer [Kim: fig. 6 @250] is of a single-layer structure Kim: [¶0097, “The light-emitting devices 260, the bank 270, and the spacer 275 may be on the planarization layer 250”] or a double-layer structure [alternate limitation not addressed]. Claims 4-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita, Kim, and Park (US 2023/0016019). All reference is to Okazaki unless otherwise indicated. Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim teaches the display substrate according to Claim 3 Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim does not teach the plurality of touch lines are divided into two groups of touch lines, and the plurality of floating lines are located at two sides of each group of touch lines respectively [¶0139, “The first guard line GL1 may be disposed on the outer side of the outermost one RLq of the third touch signal lines RL1 to RLq”] Park teaches a plurality of touch lines are divided into two groups of touch lines, and a plurality of floating lines are located at two sides of each group of touch lines respectively [¶0139, “The first guard line GL1 may be disposed on the outer side of the outermost one RLq of the third touch signal lines RL1 to RLq”] Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate guard lines between a group of touch lines and a corresponding ground line, as taught by Park, into the display panel taught by Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita and Kim in order mitigate the influence of a ground line voltage change on the group of touch lines. Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita, Kim and Park teaches the display substrate according to Claim 4, wherein each group of touch lines [Kajita: fig. 3 @30 second column and third column] is arranged in a first direction [x] and extends in a second direction [y], the first direction intersects with the second direction [x and Y are perpendicular]; and the plurality of floating lines [Kajita: fig. 3 @dmyT1-3] are located at the two sides of each group of touch lines in the first direction respectively [Kajita: fig. 3 illustrates claimed arrangement]. Regarding Claim 13 (Original) Okazaki in view of Yamanaka, Kajita, Kim, and Park teaches the display substrate according to Claim 4, wherein the plurality of floating lines [Park: fig. 5 @GL1-GL3] extend from edges of one sides of the plurality of touch lines [Park: fig. 5 @(TL21 and TL22 for GL4), (RL1 and RL2 for GL2), and (TL1 and TL2 for GL3)] close to the display region [Park: fig. 5 @position where touch lines connect to touch electrodes in display area] to be flush with ends of one sides of the plurality of touch lines away from the display region [Park: fig. 5 illustrates terminal board where ends of GL 1-3 and TL11, TL12, RL1, RL2, TL21 and TL22 are flush with each other]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-12, and 14 are 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1100-1800 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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. /Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596431
VIRTUAL REALITY CONTENT DISPLAY SYSTEM AND VIRTUAL REALITY CONTENT DISPLAY METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596279
ACTIVE MATRIX SUBSTRATE AND A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583317
INPUT DEVICE FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585480
USE OF GAZE TECHNOLOGY FOR HIGHLIGHTING AND SELECTING DIFFERENT ITEMS ON A VEHICLE DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579947
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
75%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+16.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 427 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