Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/671,506

Display Device

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 14, 2022
Examiner
CIESLEWICZ, ANETA B
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
151 granted / 228 resolved
-1.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 228 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 The Amendment filed on January 6, 2026 has been entered. No claim(s) has/have been canceled or added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 continue to be pending in the application. Claim Objections Claims 5-14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: With respect to claim 5, in lines 2-3 of the claim “at least one of” should read “at least one power line of” in order for the claim language to be consistent throughout the claims. Claims 6-14 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 5 and which inherit issue of claim 5 are objected to for similar reasons. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claim 6, as currently amended the claim requires that “the at least two different power line include a first power line … and a second power line (lines 35-36, claim 1) and that “the at least one power line [of the at least two different power line] includes a first power line and a second power line” (lines 1-2, claim 6). It is unclear form the claim language whether the second recited “first power line” and “second power line” were intended to relate back to “a first power line” and “a second power line” (lines 35-36, claim 1) or to set forth an additional “first power line” and “second power line”. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assume that the second recited “a first power line” and “a second power line” were intended to set forth additional elements of the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 15-20 are allowed. Claim(s) 5-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display device, particularly characterized by at least two different voltage/power lines arranged directly on a same layer in a bending area of the display device, located between a data driving portion and an active area of the display device, wherein a first voltage line and a second voltage line of the two different voltage/power lines supply voltage at different levels, in combination with all other elements of the display device recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Kim et al. (US 20150041769) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0132487) and Yamashita et al. (US 2008/0198104) fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim. Claim(s) 2-4 and 15-20, which either directly or indirectly depend from claim(s) 1, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 1, is/are allowed for the similar reasons. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on January 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments. 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 ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM. 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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. /A.B.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2022
Application Filed
May 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 22, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 28, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581921
MULTIPLE PATTERNING WITH SELECTIVE MANDREL FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568806
CONFORMAL DIELECTRIC CAP FOR SUBTRACTIVE VIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12550437
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538544
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12520678
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-0.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 228 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