Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/950,338

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2022
Examiner
ZHANG, MICHAEL N
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
212 granted / 396 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
454
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 396 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2016/0370508). Jeong et al. is directed to a polarizing plate and optical display (Abstract). As to claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12 and 18, Jeong et al. teach the following laminate structure: PNG media_image1.png 424 1228 media_image1.png Greyscale As shown in Figure 3 above, the composition for the second adhesive layer 14, or Applicant’s “second layer of first film” or “second portion” and the composition for the first adhesive layer 13, or Applicant’s “first layer of first film” or “first portion” concurrently or simultaneously coated onto the release film 10 are dried to form a stack structure [0097]. Jeong et al. teach that there is no adhesive layer and/or no bonding layer interposed between the first adhesive layer 130 and the second adhesive layer 140 [0068]. The layered structure can be applied via the dual adhesive layer 13/14 to an optical device such as a liquid crystal display panel, organic light emitting device among others [0038]. Jeong et al. teach that the second adhesive layer 140 or Applicant’s “second layer of first film” has a lower tensile modulus than the first adhesive layer 130 or Applicant’s “first layer of first film” [0069]. Jeong et al. teaches the first adhesive layer can have a thickness of 5 to 40 microns and second adhesive can have a thickness greater than the first adhesive layer and the protective film can have a thickness of 5 to 200 microns (Claim 8 and 12 of Jeong). This allows the first film to have a thickness range that overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) As to claim 3 and 13, Jeong et al. teach that first adhesive layer 130 or Applicant’s “first layer of first film” has a high tensile modulus [0042]. Specifically, it can have a tensile modulus of about 10 MPa to less than about 2,000 MPa (2GPa), and, in one embodiment, about 50 MPa to about 1500 MPa (1.5 GPa), and, in one embodiment, about 200 MPa to about 1500 MPa (1.5 GPa) [0043]. As to claims 6 and 15, Jeong et al. teach that the second adhesive layer or Applicant’s “second layer of first film” can be made of a (meth)acrylic copolymer [0075-0085]. As to claims 7, 9, 17 and 19, Jeong et. teach the claimed invention above. As the adhesive layers are made of adhesive and used to bond the adjacent layer, the Examiner considers the exterior portion of the first adhesive layer and second adhesive layers to be Applicant’s claimed “adhesive layers”. Additionally, Jeong et al. teach, although not shown in FIG. 1, in an embodiment wherein the protective layer 120 is realized by the protective film, the polarizing plate may further include a primer layer formed on a lower surface of the protective layer 120 to improve bonding between the polarizer 110 and the protective layer 120 [0037]. As to claims 5 and 14, Jeong et al. teach the claimed invention above. Further, Jeong et al. teach that the second adhesive layer 140 has a lower tensile modulus than the first adhesive layer 130 and thus provides good stress relief. Accordingly, the second adhesive layer 140 can secure durability upon fracture or severe conditions in reworking and can facilitate adhesion of the polarizing plate 200 to a liquid crystal display panel. Furthermore, the second adhesive layer 140 can prevent or substantially prevent generation of cracks in the polarizer by stress relief with respect to physical variation of the polarizer through shrinkage or expansion of the polarizer even under high temperature and/or high humidity conditions, and can improve durability by improving wettability with respect to the liquid crystal display panel. The polarizing plate 200 includes adhesive layers composed of the first adhesive layer 130 and the second adhesive layer 140 having different tensile moduli, thereby simultaneously achieving a barrier layer effect, durability improvement, and thickness reduction of the polarizing plate [0069]. Although Jeon et al. teach “in an embodiment” the second adhesive layer may have a modulus tensile modulus of about 0.01 MPa to less than about 1 MPa [0070], this is only pertaining to an embodiment. The disclosure as a whole suggests that the second adhesive layer only must have a lower tensile modulus than the first and this difference creates a barrier layer effect, durability improvement and thickness reduction of the polarizing plate. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to optimize the elastic modulus of the second adhesive layer to 5 MPa to about 30 MPa to tailor the desired barrier layer effect, durability improvement and thickness reduction of the polarizing plate. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). As to claims 4, 10, 16 and 20, Jeong et al. teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the first film elastic modulus of about 700 MPa to about 1.2 GPa or the yield strain of the first film is about 2.9% or less. It is reasonable to presume that the first film elastic modulus and yield strain are inherent to Jeong et. al. Support for said presumption is found in that Jeong et al. teach the same laminate structure as discussed above including similar polymers, thicknesses as discussed in the Specification, and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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. /Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 24, 2025
Response Filed
May 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600113
FLEXIBLE COVER WINDOW WITH IMPROVED STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600117
HYBRID ROOFING MEMBRANE AND METHODS OF MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576621
ADHESIVELESS THERMALLY LAMINATED BARRIER HEAT SEALING FILMS INCLUDING POLYETHYLENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565723
Fabric with Flow Restricting Core
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558878
BI-DIRECTIONALLY ORIENTED MULTILAYER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 396 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