Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/280,861

DISPLAY MODULE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
SOWARD, IDA M
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
1226 granted / 1316 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1364
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1316 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the election filed December 28, 2025. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 18-20 in the reply filed on November 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details (method language for product invention). The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: DISPLAY MODULE INCLUDING ULTRA-THIN GLASS. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 7, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2018/0158894 A1). In regard to claim 1, Park et al. teach a display module (Figure 10), comprising: an ultra-thin glass 110; a driving circuit layer 120-180 disposed on a side of the ultra-thin glass 110; a light-emitting functional layer 370 disposed on a side of the driving circuit layer 120-180 away from the ultra-thin glass 110; an encapsulation layer 380 disposed on a side of the light-emitting functional layer 370 away from the driving circuit layer 120-180; and a supporting structure 389-392 disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer 380 away from the light-emitting functional layer 370 (Figure 10, pages 2-10, paragraphs [0024]-[0125]). In regard to claim 7, Park et al. teach a touch panel (TEa-392) attached to a side of the ultra-thin glass 110 away from the driving circuit layer 120-180 (Figure 10, pages 2-10, paragraphs [0024]-[0125]). In regard to claim 18, Park et al. teach a display device 1000, comprising a display module (Figure 10) comprising: an ultra-thin glass 110; a driving circuit layer 120-180 disposed on a side of the ultra-thin glass 110; a light-emitting functional layer 370 disposed on a side of the driving circuit layer 120-180 away from the ultra-thin glass 110 ; an encapsulation layer 380 disposed on a side of the light-emitting functional layer 370 away from the driving circuit layer 120-180; and a supporting structure 389-392 disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer 380 away from the light-emitting functional layer 370 (Figure 10, pages 2-10, paragraphs [0024]-[0125]). In regard to claim 20, Park et al. teach a touch panel (TEa-392) attached to a side of the ultra-thin glass 110 away from the driving circuit layer 120-180 (Figure 10, pages 2-10, paragraphs [0024]-[0125]). 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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0158894 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Jhou et al. (US 2018/0309084 A1). Park et al. teach all mentioned in the rejection above. However, Park et al. fail to teach a color film layer disposed on a side of the ultra-thin glass away from the driving circuit layer. In regard to claim 5, Jhou et al. teach a color film layer (in 10, See paragraph [0018]) disposed on a side of the ultra-thin glass 201 away from the driving circuit layer 50/60 (Figures 1-2 and 4, pages 2-5, paragraphs [0015]-[0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the display module as taught by Park et al. with the display module having a color film layer disposed on a side of the ultra-thin glass away from the driving circuit layer as taught by Jhou et al. to provide stable and high display quality (page 1, paragraph [0012]). In regard to claim 8, Jhou et al. teach a thickness of the ultra-thin glass 201 ranging from larger than or equal to 0.001 mm (1 micron) to less than or equal to 0.2 mm (200 microns) (Figures 1-2 and 4, page 4, paragraph [0025]), which is in the range of 30 microns to 60 microns. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-4, 6 and 19 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices: Chen et al. (US 9,412,967 B2) Guenther et al. (US 7,026,660 B2) Huang et al. (CN 103474580 A) Jeon (US 2016/0315284 A1) Jeon et al. (US 2019/0259965 A1) Kwak et al. (US 2016/0233248 A1) Lee et al. (US 2018/0019439 A1) Tsai et al. (US 10,014,352 B1) Yun et al. (US 2017/0186819 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm. 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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. IMS January 12, 2026 /IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604638
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, DISPLAY MOTHER BOARD AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598979
Dual Contact and Power Rail for High Performance Standard Cells
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598917
ADVANCED MRAM DEVICE STRUCTURE HAVING HYPERBOLOID SHAPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598894
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING PASSIVATION LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588384
DISPLAY BASE PLATE INCLUDING MAIN AND AUXILIARY SPACERS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1316 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