Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/831,275

DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 02, 2022
Examiner
SALERNO, SARAH KATE
Art Unit
2814
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
620 granted / 852 resolved
+4.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 852 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/25 has been entered. Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 5/19/25 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 1-20 are pending and claims 11-20 are withdrawn. 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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US PGPub 2021/0320150) in view of Maegawa et al. (US PGPub 20200287103) and Kimura et al. (US PGPub 2005/0260335). Claim 1: Yang teaches a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (SUB2); a first display element (PX1 in DA) disposed under a face of the substrate; a first bank (IBK1); a first functional layer (WLC1) overlapping the first display element, confined by at least the first bank, and comprising a first base resin (BS1), first quantum dots (WLS1), and first scatterers (SC1) [0128-0132]; a first color filter (CF1) overlapping the first functional layer; and a dummy unit (WLC1 in NDA) overlapping no display elements of the display apparatus in a direction perpendicular to the face of the substrate and comprising a first wall (IBK2), a dummy-unit base resin (BS1), and dummy-unit scatterers (SC1), wherein the dummy-unit base resin and the dummy-unit scatterers are confined by at least the first wall. It is noted that the DPX1 units are in the non-display area and therefore are not display elements. Yang does not teach wherein no color filter of the display apparatus is disposed between the dummy unit and the substrate or a concentration of the dummy-unit scatterers in the dummy-unit base resin is greater than a concentration of the first scatterers in the first base resin. Maegawa teaches no color filter of the display apparatus is disposed above the dummy unit in line with the color filters in the display region and is replaced with a different resin to secure surface planarity of the image display device as well as shield other circuit sections [0046-0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the way the dummy unit overlaps with the color filters to provide product planarity and shielding of other circuit components as taught by Maegawa. Yang and Maegawa do not teach or a concentration of the dummy-unit scatterers in the dummy-unit base resin is greater than a concentration of the first scatterers in the first base resin. Kimura teaches making the dummy regions being larger, therefore containing more functional material and its components to account for uniform coverage during the manufacturing process [0213-0218]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the concentration levels to account for uniform coverage during the manufacturing process [0213-0218] as taught by Kimura. Claim 2: Yang teaches comprising an internal partition wall (IBK) that divides the dummy unit into sub-dummy units. Claim 3: Yang teaches [0174] (Fig. 15) a shape and an area of at least one of the sub-dummy units are same as a shape and an area of the first functional layer in a plan view of the display device. Claim 4: Yang teaches (Fig. 15) the dummy unit has a rectangular shape in a plan view of the display apparatus. Claim 5: Yang teaches (Fig. 17) first functional layer is disposed between the first display element and the substrate, wherein the dummy unit comprises an opening, and wherein the opening is positioned at an edge of the substrate. Claim 6: Yang teaches (Fig. 15-17) a second display element (PX2); a third display element (PX3); a second functional layer overlapping the second display element and comprising a second base resin, second quantum dots, and second scatterers; and a third functional layer overlapping the third display element and comprising a third base resin and third scatterers, wherein the concentration of the dummy-unit scatterers in the dummy-unit base resin is greater than at least one of a concentration of the second scatterers in the second base resin and a concentration of the third scatterers in the third base resin. Yang does not teach a concentration of the dummy-unit scatterers in the dummy-unit base resin is greater than a concentration of the first scatterers in the first base resin. Kimura teaches making the dummy regions being larger, therefore containing more functional material and its components to account for uniform coverage during the manufacturing process [0213-0218]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the concentration levels to account for uniform coverage during the manufacturing process [0213-0218] as taught by Kimura. Claim 7: Kimura teaches dummy unit comprises dummy-unit quantum dots, and wherein a concentration of the dummy-unit quantum dots in the dummy-unit base resin is greater than a concentration of the first quantum dots in the first base resin [0213-0218]. Claim 8: Yang teaches [0070] a second display element, wherein no intervening display elements are positioned between the first display element and the second display element, wherein the second display element emits light of a same color as the first display element. Claim 9: Yang teaches comprising a first cover layer (BF) disposed between the substrate and the first functional layer and between the substrate and the dummy unit, wherein the first function layer is disposed between the first display element and the substrate. Claim 10: Yang teaches a second cover layer disposed directly on each of the first functional layer and the dummy unit. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 5712721705. 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. /SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598942
METHOD FOR ANALYZING LAYOUT PATTERN DENSITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571927
RADIATION SENSOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563729
Method for Generating Vertical Channel Structures in Three-Dimensionally Integrated Semiconductor Memories
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563818
Methods of Forming Semiconductor Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557283
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 852 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