Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/559,914

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2021
Priority
Mar 09, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0030766
Examiner
NGUYEN, SOPHIA T
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
58%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allowance Rate
232 granted / 512 resolved
-22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
597
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
89.5%
+49.5% vs TC avg
§102
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 512 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment dated 08/12/2025, in which claims 1, 14,16-17 were amended, claims 3, 5-13, 18-20 were withdrawn, has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US Pub. 20200144453), hereafter Chang453 in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210057623) and Konishi et al. (US Pub. 20160233401). Regarding claim 1, Chang453 discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 a display device comprising: a first electrode [E1 and PE1] and a second electrode [E2 and PE2] extending in one direction on a substrate [BS1] and spaced from each other; a plurality of light emitting elements [ED] located on the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2] in an emission area [PA], a first connection electrode [CTE1] on the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and in contact with at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements in the emission area [PA], wherein each of the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2] comprises a main electrode portion and a plurality of sub-electrode portions [comprises only E1 or E2 layer] having a thickness smaller than that of the main electrode portion in a thickness direction of the display device, wherein the plurality of sub-electrode portions of each of the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2] are connected to respective sides of the main electrode portion of the corresponding ones of the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2] in the one direction, and wherein at least one of both ends of a light emitting element [ED] of the plurality of light emitting elements is located on the main electrode portion of the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2]; wherein the main electrode portion of the first electrode and the main electrode portion of the second electrode face each other and partially overlap the light emitting element [ED][See annotated drawing]. PNG media_image1.png 445 658 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 458 549 media_image2.png Greyscale Chang453 fails to disclose a first insulating layer on the first electrode and the second electrode; and the plurality of light emitting elements being on the first insulating layer; wherein the first connection electrode is in contact with at least one of the plurality of sub-electrode portions of the first electrode in a non-emission area spaced from the emission area. Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8, paragraph [0133], [0145]-[0147], [0157]-[0160] a first insulating layer [INS1] on the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] and the second electrode [REL2 and CPL2]; and the plurality of light emitting elements [LD] being on the first insulating layer [INS1]; wherein the first connection electrode [CNE1] is in contact with at least one of the plurality of sub-electrode portions of the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] in a non-emission area [CA] spaced from the emission area [VA][Fig. 5, Fig. 8]. PNG media_image3.png 579 587 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Chang453 to include a first insulating layer on the first electrode and the second electrode; and the plurality of light emitting elements being on the first insulating layer; wherein the first connection electrode is in contact with at least one of the plurality of sub-electrode portions of the first electrode in a non-emission area spaced from the emission area. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chang453 in the above manner for the purpose of stably supporting the light emitting element; providing suitable alternative area for forming electrical contact between the first connection electrode and the first electrode [paragraph [0133], [0145]-[0147], [0157]-[0160] of Kim et al.]. Chang453 fails to disclose the plurality of sub-electrode portions having a same number of conductive layer with that of the main electrode portion. Chang453 discloses that the plurality of sub-electrode portions are thinner electrode portions and the main electrode portion is a thicker electrode portion. Konishi et al. discloses in Fig. 13- Fig. 21 wherein the first main electrode portion [portion of etching frame 203 or 403 overlapped with LED chip 5 or 405] has a thickness greater than that of the first sub-electrode portions [wiring portion of etching frame 203 or 403] in a thickness direction of the display device and having a same number of conductive layer with that of the first sub-electrode portions. Konishi et al. further discloses wherein the main electrode portion of the first electrode and the main electrode portion of the second electrode face each other and partially overlap the light emitting element [5 or 405] PNG media_image4.png 642 872 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 642 890 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 313 504 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 525 735 media_image7.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Konishi et al. into the method of Chang453 to include the plurality of sub-electrode portions having a same number of conductive layer with that of the main electrode portion. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chang453 in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative method for forming electrode having different thicknesses. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claims 2 and 4, Chang453 discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 wherein both sides of the main electrode portion of each of the first electrode [E1 and PE1] and the second electrode [E2 and PE2], in the one direction, are integrated and connected to the corresponding ones of the plurality of sub-electrode portions; a via layer [INS4] between the substrate [BS1] and the first [E1 and PE1] and the second [E2 and PE2] electrodes, wherein each of the main electrode portions and the plurality of sub-electrode portions is directly on the via layer [INS4]. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210057623) in view of Konishi et al. (US Pub. 20160233401) and Chang et al. (US Pub. 20200144453), hereafter Chang453. Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8 a display device comprising: a first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] comprising a first main electrode portion extending in a first direction [DR2], and a plurality of first sub-electrode portions connected to both sides of the first main electrode portion in the first direction [DR2][annotated Fig. 5]; a second electrode [REL2 and CPL2] spaced from the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] in a second direction [DR1] and extending in the first direction [DR2][annotated Fig. 5]; a plurality of light emitting elements [LD] in an emission area [VA] having one end [EP1 or EP2] located on the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] or the second electrode [REL2 and CPL2] [annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; a first connection electrode [CNE1] on the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] and in contact with some of the plurality of light emitting elements [LD][annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; and a second connection electrode [CNE2] on the second electrode [REL2 and CPL2] and in contact with other ones of the plurality of light emitting elements [another ones LD][annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; wherein the plurality of light emitting elements [LD] comprises first light emitting elements [LD] having one end [EP1] located on the first main electrode portion [annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; wherein the first connection electrode [CNE1] is on the first main electrode portion and at least one of the first sub-electrode portions is in contact with the first connection electrode [CNE1] in a non-emission area [CA] through a first contact portion penetrating a first insulating layer [INS1], the non-emission area [CA] being spaced from the emission area [VA][annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 8][paragraph [0132], [0144]-[0146], [0157]-[0160]]. PNG media_image8.png 579 587 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 854 771 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 741 883 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 741 883 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 359 574 media_image12.png Greyscale Kim et al. fails to disclose wherein the first main electrode portion has a thickness greater than that of the first sub-electrode portions in a thickness direction of the display device and having a same number of conductive layer with that of the first sub-electrode portions. Chang453 discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, paragraph [0079]-[0093] wherein the first main electrode portion has a thickness greater than that of the first sub-electrode portions in a thickness direction of the display device. PNG media_image13.png 505 732 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 458 549 media_image2.png Greyscale Konishi et al. discloses in Fig. 18-Fig. 21 wherein the first main electrode portion [portion 415 of etching frame overlapped with LED chip 405] has a thickness greater than that of the first sub-electrode portions [wiring portion of etching frame 403] in a thickness direction of the display device and having a same number of conductive layer with that of the first sub-electrode portions. PNG media_image14.png 525 735 media_image14.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 642 872 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image15.png 646 793 media_image15.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Konishi et al. and Chang453 into the method of Kim et al. to include wherein the first main electrode portion has a thickness greater than that of the first sub-electrode portions in a thickness direction of the display device and having a same number of conductive layer with that of the first sub-electrode portions. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation effect of the light emitting device and improving an alignment degree of the light emitting elements ED [paragraph [0182 of Konishi et al., paragraph [0102], [0119]-[0120] of Chang453] . Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8 wherein the second electrode [REL2 and CPL2] comprises a second main electrode portion extending in the first direction [DR2]; and a plurality of second sub-electrode portions connected to both sides of the second main electrode portion in the first direction [DR2], and wherein the first light emitting elements [LD] have another end [EP2] located on the second main electrode portion [annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6]; PNG media_image9.png 854 771 media_image9.png Greyscale Chang453 also discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, wherein the second electrode [E2 and PE2] comprises a second main electrode portion extending in the first direction; and a plurality of second sub-electrode portions connected to both sides of the second main electrode portion in the first direction, and wherein the first light emitting elements [ED] have another end located on the second main electrode portion; PNG media_image13.png 505 732 media_image13.png Greyscale Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8 wherein the first insulating layer [INS1] is on the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] and the second electrode [REL2 and CPL2], and wherein the second connection electrode [CNE2] is on the second main electrode portion and the second connection electrode [CNE2] is in contact with at least one of the plurality of second sub- electrode portions through a second contact portion penetrating the first insulating layer [INS1] annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 8][paragraph [0132], [0144]-[0146], [0157]-[0160]]. PNG media_image16.png 800 906 media_image16.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 359 574 media_image12.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8 a bank layer [BNK1, BNK2] that is around the emission area including the plurality of light emitting elements [LD], and a sub-region located on one side of the emission area in the first direction [DR2], wherein each of the first main electrode portion and the second main electrode portion is located in the emission area [VA], and each of the first sub-electrode portions and the second sub-electrode portions is located across the emission area and the sub-region. PNG media_image17.png 785 894 media_image17.png Greyscale Chang453 also discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, a bank layer [BR1, BR2] that is around an emission area [PA] including the plurality of light emitting elements [ED], and a sub-region located on one side of the emission area in the first direction, wherein each of the first main electrode portion and the second main electrode portion is located in the emission area [PA], and each of the first sub-electrode portions and the second sub-electrode portions is located across the emission area [PA] and the sub-region. PNG media_image13.png 505 732 media_image13.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments in pages 18-19, Examiner respectfully disagrees because“the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131. The contact region has no light emitting device formed therein, therefore it is equivalent with the claimed “non-emission area”. As stated above, Kim et al. suggests in Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 the limitation of “wherein the first connection electrode [CNE1] is in contact with at least one of the plurality of sub-electrode portions of the first electrode [REL1 and CPL1] in a non-emission area [CA] spaced from the emission area [VA].” PNG media_image18.png 579 587 media_image18.png Greyscale Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday. 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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Dec 26, 2024
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 12, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Oct 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635225
Footing Removal in Cut-Metal Process
2y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12615765
MEMORY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
4y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12610801
Metallization Process for an Integrated Circuit
3y 4m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12563735
ELECTRONIC DEVICES INCLUDING VERTICAL STRINGS OF MEMORY CELLS, AND RELATED MEMORY DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS
4y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563893
METHOD FOR FORMING AN ISOLATION STRUCTURE HAVING MULTIPLE THICKNESSES TO MITIGATE DAMAGE TO A DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 7m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
58%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 512 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