Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/784,271

DISPLAY DEVICE RELATED TO MICRO-LED AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 10, 2022
Examiner
CHI, SUBERR L
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 640 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
662
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 640 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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 . Election Applicant’s election with traverse of claims #7-13 and 15-20 in the reply filed on September 4, 2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant because there is a burden to search; the product/process claims lack unity of invention and the species have mutually exclusive characteristics. The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. IDS The IDS document(s) filed on September 1, 2022 and March 19, 2024 and June 2, 2025 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action. Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 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. Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0214302 A1), hereafter “Yeh”. As to claim 7, Yeh teaches: A display device (FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B) related to a micro light emitting diode (micro-LED), the display device comprising: an assembly substrate 110 including a first type assembly groove 110b and a second type assembly groove 110a having a different size or structure from the first type assembly groove. Yeh teaches the first and second type assembly grooves having a different size and different structure (shape). See Yeh, FIG. 1B. Wherein: semiconductor light emitting elements of a first group 130 among a plurality of specific semiconductor light emitting elements (120+130+140) are arranged in the first type assembly groove within the assembly substrate. Semiconductor light emitting elements of a second group 120 among the plurality of specific semiconductor light emitting elements are arranged in the second type assembly groove within the assembly substrate. As to claim 9, Yeh teaches the semiconductor light emitting elements of the first group 130 are not arranged in the second type assembly groove 110a, and the semiconductor light emitting elements of the second group 120 are arranged in the second type assembly groove 110a because the corresponding semiconductor light emitting elements are arranged in their respective grooves. Id. As to claim 10, Yeh teaches an arrangement of an assembly electrode 480c for the first type assembly groove is different from an arrangement for an assembly electrode 480a for the second type assembly groove. See Yeh, FIG. 9. As to claim 13, Yeh teaches a substrate 110. The terms “donor” and “final display” is process language that does not structurally limit the claim. As to claim 18, Yeh teaches: A display device (FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B) containing a micro light emitting diode (micro-LED), the display device comprising: an assembly substrate 110 including a first type assembly groove 110b and a second type assembly groove 110a. A first group 130 of semiconductor light emitting elements located in the first type assembly groove within the assembly substrate. A second group 120 of semiconductor light emitting elements located in the second type assembly groove. Wherein a size of the first group of semiconductor light emitting elements is different from a size of the second group of semiconductor light emitting elements. Yeh teaches the first group and second group having different shapes and sizes. Id. at FIG. 1B. As to claim 19, Yeh teaches the first type assembly groove and second type assembly groove have both different sizes and shapes. Id. As to claim 20, Yeh teaches the size (width) of the first group 130 of semiconductor light emitting elements is greater than the size of the second group 120 of semiconductor light emitting elements. Id. at FIG. 1C. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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. 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh as applied to claim 7. As to claim 8, Yeh teaches the grooves having different shapes and volumes, but does not teach a radius of the second type assembly groove is smaller than a radius of the first type assembly groove, thereby limiting both grooves to circular shapes. See Yeh, ¶¶ [0032]-[0033]. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different sized circular grooves, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the pattern used to form said circular grooves. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form Claims 11, 12, 15-17 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. As to claim 11, Yeh teaches the assembly electrode partially overlapping the first type assembly groove but it is unclear if this is sufficient to generate a DEP force. Yeh does not teach the assembly electrode not overlapping the second type assembly groove. As to claim 15, Yeh is the closest prior art but does not teach the limitations of the at least one barrier. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm. 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 on (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. /SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 10, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603479
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING VERTICAL-CAVITY SURFACE-EMITTING LASER ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598766
Contact Interface Engineering for Reducing Contact Resistance
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593676
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH METAL SPACERS AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581662
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568828
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FABRICATING REGROWN FIDUCIALS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+2.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 640 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