Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/911,200

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 13, 2022
Examiner
AMADIZ, RODNEY
Art Unit
2622
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
504 granted / 637 resolved
+17.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
649
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed December 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 In (USPGPUB 2015/0302793), see below. 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, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by In et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0302793—hereinafter “In793”). As to Claim 1, In793 teaches a display device (See Fig. 1 at 100) comprising: a first pixel (Fig. 1 at 80 (column 1, row 1) and Fig. 2 at 81), a second pixel (Fig. 1 at 80 (column 1, row 2) and Fig. 2 at 81), and a first wiring (Fig. 2 at D[m]), wherein the first pixel comprises a light-emitting element (Fig. 2 at OLED), wherein the second pixel comprises a light-receiving element (Fig. 2 at PD), wherein the first pixel is supplied with image data from the first wiring (Fig. 5B and Pg. 3, ¶ 50 and Pg. 4, ¶ 71 – “The first transistor T1 may generate a driving current of a data voltage according to a data signal D[m] applied to the first transistor T1 through the m.sup.th data line Dm and the second transistor T2, and may transmit the driving current to the OLED through the second electrode.”), and wherein the second pixel outputs received-light data to the first wiring (Fig. 5C and Pg. 5, ¶ 98 – “The third period 3 may be a period to detect the second node voltage V2 reflecting a varying voltage by sensing the light emitted from the OLED by the light receiving element.”; and Pg. 7, ¶’s 133-136; ¶ 135 – “The ADC coupled to the data line Dm may receive a value of the second node voltage V2”). As to Claim 5, In793 teaches that the first pixel comprises a first transistor (Fig. 2 at T2) and a second transistor (Fig. 2 at T1), wherein one of a source and a drain of the first transistor is electrically connected to the first wiring (Fig. 2 at T2 connected to D[m]), and the other of the source and the drain of the first transistor is electrically connected to a gate of the second transistor (Fig. 2 at T2 connected to T1 at N3), and wherein one of a source and a drain of the second transistor is electrically connected to one electrode of the light-emitting element (Fig. 2 at T1 connected to OLED). As to Claim 7, In793 teaches a display device (See Fig. 1 at 100) comprising: a first pixel (Fig. 2 at 80) and a first wiring (Fig. 2 at D[m]), wherein the first pixel comprises a light-emitting (Fig. 2 at OLED) and light-receiving element (Fig. 2 at PD), wherein the light-emitting and light-receiving element has a function of emitting light in accordance with an electric field (Pg. 3, ¶ 49 – “The OLED may be applied with the first power supply ELVDD and the second power supply ELVSS, and then a current may flow through the OLED such that light may be emitted. ”) and a function of performing photoelectric conversion on incident light (Pg. 2, ¶ 21 – “photosensing in which the OLED emits light by drive current based on one of the plurality of data signals and a voltage of the second capacitor varies with photo-leakage current generated according to intensity of light incident onto the light receiving element”), wherein the first pixel is supplied with image data from the first wiring (Fig. 5B and Pg. 3, ¶ 50 and Pg. 4, ¶ 71 – “The first transistor T1 may generate a driving current of a data voltage according to a data signal D[m] applied to the first transistor T1 through the m.sup.th data line Dm and the second transistor T2, and may transmit the driving current to the OLED through the second electrode.”), and wherein the first pixel outputs received-light data to the first wiring (Fig. 5C and Pg. 5, ¶ 98 – “The third period 3 may be a period to detect the second node voltage V2 reflecting a varying voltage by sensing the light emitted from the OLED by the light receiving element.”; and Pg. 7, ¶’s 133-136; ¶ 135 – “The ADC coupled to the data line Dm may receive a value of the second node voltage V2”). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over In793. As to Claim 2, In793 teaches a display device comprising: first to third wirings (Fig. 1 at D1 to Dm) and first to sixth pixels (Fig. 1 at 80 (first 2 rows) and Fig. 2 at 80), wherein the first pixel (Fig. 1 at row 1, column 1 (R1C1)), the third pixel (Fig. 1 at R1C2), and the fifth pixel (Fig. 1 at R1C3) comprise light-emitting elements (Fig. 2 at OLED), wherein the second pixel (Fig. 1 at R2C1), the fourth pixel (Fig. 1 at R2C2), and the sixth pixel (Fig. 1 at R2C3) each comprise a light-receiving element (Fig. 2 at PD), wherein the first pixel is supplied with first image data from the first wiring (Fig. 1, pixel at R1C1 suppled with image data from D1), wherein the third pixel is supplied with second image data from the second wiring (Fig. 1, pixel at R1C2, supplied with image data from D2), wherein the fifth pixel is supplied with third image data from the third wiring (Fig. 1, pixel at R1C3, supplied with image data from Dm), wherein the second pixel outputs first received-light data to the first wiring (Pg. 5, ¶ 98 and Pg. 7, ¶’s 133-136 and Fig. 1, pixel at R2C1 to first wiring D1; see also Fig. 2 at PD), wherein the fourth pixel outputs second received-light data to the second wiring (Fig. 1, pixel at R2C2 to second wiring D2; see also Fig. 2 at PD), and wherein the sixth pixel outputs third received-light data to the third wiring (Fig. 1, pixel at R2C3 to third wiring Dm; see also Fig. 2 at PD). In793, however fails to teach that the first, third and fifth pixels emit light of different colors. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art to have pixels emit light of different colors. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to have pixels emit light of different colors in the display device taught by In793, in order to provide a color display. As to Claim 3, In793, as modified above, teaches that the second pixel, the fourth pixel, and the sixth pixel comprise light- receiving elements receiving light of different colors (See Fig. 2 at 81 and 82). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-9 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Please see page 6 of the Non-Final Office Action dated October 7, 2025 for reasons for allowance. Claims 4, 6, 10 and 11 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: Tseng et al. USPGPUB 2007/0236429 Jang et al. USPGPUB 2007/0024547 Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM EST. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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. /RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602126
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585355
AUGMENTED BOOK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585382
Multi-Host Touch Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578914
A PORTABLE TERMINAL THAT IS CONNECTED TO A HEADMOUNTED DISPLAY TO DISPLAY INFORMATION IN COOPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567391
AMBIENT-LIGHT DETECTION CIRCUIT AND DETECTION METHOD, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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