Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/925,326

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 15, 2022
Examiner
KRUER, KEVIN R
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
27%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 27% of cases
27%
Career Allow Rate
212 granted / 798 resolved
-38.4% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 798 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-10, and 14-21 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 11/15/2022 has been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDS is enclosed herein. Drawings The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 contains a frame. 37 CFR1.84(g) states “The sheets must not contain frames around the sight (i.e., the usable surface).” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The amendments to the specification filed 11/15/2022 are acknowledged. 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 3, 4, 20, and 21 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. The claims are held to be indefinite because it is unclear if the parenthetical phrases are intended to further limit the claimed invention. 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) 1-4, 6-10, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-43058 (herein referred to as “LG”) in view of WO2015/151224 (herein referred to as “Lintec”). With regards to claims 1 and 6, LG teaches (fig. 8) a display device (0058)comprising: an active area AA (corresponding to "display area") having a plurality of pixels (0025); a non-active area NA (corresponding to "frame area") surrounding the active area AA (0024); a drive transistor TD (corresponding to "thin-film transistor layer") (0026); a light emitting-element layer (0009) which comprises a plurality of light emitting elements (0002) formed on the drive transistor TD in the active area AA (0009). The light emitting element includes a first electrode, a light-emitting layer, and a second electrode (0037) and emit light of a different color (0040); and an encapsulation unit 150 (corresponding to "sealing layer") sealing the light emitting element layer and disposed on the light emitting layer. The sealing unit 150 comprises a first inorganic sealing layer 152 (corresponding to "first inorganic sealing film") disposed on the light emitting layer and an organic sealing layer 154 (corresponding to "organic sealing film") disposed on the first inorganic sealing layer 152 (0059). With regards to claim 2, LG teaches the encapsulation unit may further include a second inorganic sealing layer 156 (corresponding to "second inorganic sealing film") disposed on the organic sealing layer 154 (0060) With regards to claims 3 and 4, LG teaches the first inorganic sealing layer 152 and the second inorganic sealing layer 156 each including at least one of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy; x>y), and silicon nitride-oxide (SiNxOy; x>y). With regards to claim 7, LG teaches the polymer compounds may be an acrylic-based polymer (0061). With regards to claim 18, LG teaches the invention comprises an OLED (002); the light emitting elements are therefore understood to be organic light emitting diodes. With regards to claim 19, LG teaches the encapsulation unit may further include a second inorganic sealing layer 156 (corresponding to "second inorganic sealing film") disposed on the organic sealing layer 154 (0060) With regards to claims 20 and 21, LG teaches the first inorganic sealing layer 152 and the second inorganic sealing layer 156 each including at least one of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy; x>y), and silicon nitride-oxide (SiNxOy; x>y). LG is relied upon as above, but fails to teach the acryl polymer used in the sealing layer should comprise an acryl polymer and a cyclic compound. However, Lintec teaches a (meth)acrylic composition useful for making tables and touchscreens wherein the (meth)acryl composition comprises cyclodextrin (abstract, 0009) such compositions have good balance between dielectric constants and improved resistance to moisture and whitening (abstract, 0008). Lintec teaches the claimed (meth)acrylate ester (for present claims 8-10) wherein m is 1-20 (0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the composition of Lintec as the acyl composition disclosed in LG. The motivation for doing so would have been Lintec’s composition comprising (meth)acryl resin and a cyclodextrin has improved dielectric constants, and resistance to moisture and whitening. With regards to claim 17, Lintec teaches the amount of cyclodextrin is a result effective variable (0049) controlling the dielectric constant, moisture resistance, whitening resistance, and adhesion (0049). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative amount of cyclodextrin added to the composition in order to optimize the dielectric constant, moisture resistance, whitening resistance, and adhesion of the composition. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-43058 (herein referred to as “LG”) in view of WO2015/151224 (herein referred to as “Lintec”), as applied to claims above, and further in view of WO 2018/179213 (herein US 2019/0363290 is relied upon as an English Equivalent of said document and is referred to as “Watanabe”) LG is relied upon as above, but does not teach the claimed thicknesses of the inorganic and organic encapsulation layers. However, Watanabe teaches a display device comprises a stack of in organic and organic encapsulation layers (107). Watanabe teaches the inorganic layers have a moisture proof function to inhibit the infiltration of moisture (0108) and the organic layer is used as a buffer layer to relieve stress int eh inorganic layers (109). The organic layer has a thickness greater than the inorganic layers (0111), which has a thickness of 500-1500nm (0145). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the inorganic and organic encapsulation films disclosed n LG. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the moisture barrier properties and stress relief properties of the encapsulation film Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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. /KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550643
NOVEL OXIDANTS AND STRAINED-RING PRECURSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546012
Zn-PLATED HOT STAMPED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528977
Magnetic Adhesive for Use on Skin
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12503630
ORGANOPOLYSILOXANE COMPOSITION HAVING PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE LAYER FORMATION PROPERTIES, AND USE OF SAID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12473460
CROSSLINKED POLYOLEFIN RESIN FOAM, ADHESIVE TAPE, LAYERED BODY, MOLDING, AND DISPLAY MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
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
27%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+29.6%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 798 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