Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/090,459

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Dec 28, 2022
Priority
Dec 16, 2022 — TW 111148435
Examiner
ZARNEKE, DAVID A
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Industrial Technology Research Institute
OA Round
4 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
576 granted / 813 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
856
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
63.5%
+23.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 813 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 6/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The claim amendments overcome the 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections from the previous office action and therefore it is withdrawn. 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 9 and 15, plus its dependent claims 16-20, recites the limitation "the plurality of driving elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degner et al., US 9,419,065, in view of Shin et al., US 2021/80183837. Regarding claim 1, Degner (figure 5) teaches a display device, comprising: a first display module, comprising: a first support substrate 52 having a first side surface (left), a second side surface (right) opposite to the first side surface (left), a back surface (bottom) connecting the first side surface (left) and the second side surface (right), and a front surface (top) opposite to the back surface (bottom) and connecting the first side surface (left) and the second side surface (right); a first flexible substrate 52, disposed on the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52; a first conductive circuit 51, disposed on (column 7, lines 4-6) the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52; a plurality of first electronic elements 54, disposed on the first conductive circuit 51, wherein the first conductive circuit 51 is located between the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first support substrate 48 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 54; and a protection layer 46, covering the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first conductive circuit 51; wherein the first flexible substrate 52 and the first conductive circuit 51 are bent from the first side surface (top) of the first support substrate 52 to the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52, wherein the first conductive circuit 51 comprises a conductive pattern extending continuously from the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52 to the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52 along the first side surface (left) of the first support substrate 52, the protection layer 46 covers and contacts a top surface of the conductive pattern 51 disposed on the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52, and exposes the conductive pattern 51 disposed on the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52. Degner fails to the protection layer contacts the conductive pattern disposed on the first side surface of the first support substrate, and exposes the conductive pattern disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate. Shin (figure 6) teaches the protection layer 100 contacts the conductive pattern 46 disposed on the first side surface 45 of the first support substrate 40, and exposes the conductive pattern 46 disposed on the back surface 48 of the first support substrate 40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the protection layer of Shin in the invention of Degner because Shin (paragraphs 00134-00135) teaches it protects the diodes, the side surfaces, and the substrate from external forces. With respect to claim 2, Degner (figure 5) teaches the first conductive circuit 51 comprises another conductive pattern (Degner paragraph 0055 states conductive traces, note the plural is used) disposed on the first flexible substrate 48 and continuously extending below one of the plurality of first electronic elements 54 from a top surface of the first flexible substrate 52 and electrically connected to one of the plurality of first electronic elements 54. As to claim 3, Degner (figure 5) teaches the first conductive circuit 51 located between the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first support substrate 52 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 48. In re claim 6, Shin (figure 6) teaches the protection layer 100 has a first portion covering the first side surface 45 of the first support substrate 40 and a second portion covering the front surface 41 of the first support substrate 40. Concerning claim 7, Shin (figure 6) teaches a thickness of the first portion is less than or equal to a thickness of the second portion. Pertaining to claim 9, though Degner (figure 5) fails to teach another protection layer, covering the plurality of driving elements 60, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use another protection layer in the invention of Degner because a skilled artisan knows that another protection layer would protect the driving elements from eternal forces and from peeling. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). In claim 15, Degner (figure 5) teaches a display device, comprising: a first display module, comprising: a first support substrate 52 having a first side surface (left), a second side surface (right) opposite to the first side surface (left), a back surface (bottom) connecting the first side surface (left) and the second side surface (right), and a front surface (top) opposite to the back surface (bottom) and connecting the first side surface (left) and the second side surface (right); a first flexible substrate 48, disposed on the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52; a first conductive circuit 51, disposed on the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52; a plurality of first electronic elements 54, disposed on the first conductive circuit 51, wherein the first conductive circuit 51 is located between the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first support substrate 52 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 54; and a protection layer 46, covering the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first conductive circuit 51; wherein the first flexible substrate 52 and the first conductive circuit 51 are bent from the first side surface (top) of the first support substrate 52 to the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52, wherein a projection area of the first conductive circuit 51 on the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52 is larger than a projection area of the driving elements 60 on the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52, wherein the first conductive circuit 51 comprises a conductive pattern 51 extending continuously from the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52 to the back surface (bottom) of the first support substrate 52 along the first side surface (left) of the first support substrate 52, the protection layer 46 covers and contacts a top surface (paragraph 0055 teaches traces 51 on the first support substrate 52) of the conductive pattern 51 disposed on the front surface (top) of the first support substrate 52. Degner fails to teach the protection layer covers and contacts the conductive pattern disposed on the first side surface of the first support substrate, and exposes the conductive pattern disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate. Shin (figure 6) teaches the protection layer 100 contacts the conductive pattern 46 disposed on the first side surface 45 of the first support substrate 40, and exposes the conductive pattern 46 disposed on the back surface 48 of the first support substrate 40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the protection layer of Shin in the invention of Degner because Shin (paragraphs 00134-00135) teaches it protects the diodes, the side surfaces, and the substrate from external forces. In claim 16, Degner (figure 5) teaches the first conductive circuit 51 comprises another conductive pattern (Degner paragraph 0055 states conductive traces, note the plural is used) disposed on the first flexible substrate 48 and continuously extending below one of the plurality of first electronic elements 54 from a top surface of the first flexible substrate 52 and electrically connected to one of the plurality of first electronic elements 54. Regarding claim 17, Degner (figure 5) teaches the first conductive circuit 51 located between the plurality of first electronic elements 54 and the first support substrate 52 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 48. With respect to claim 18, Shin (figure 6) teaches the protection layer 100 has a first portion covering the first side surface 45 of the first support substrate 40 and a second portion covering the front surface 41 of the first support substrate 40. As to claim 19, Shin (figure 6) teaches a thickness of the first portion is less than or equal to a thickness of the second portion. In re claim 20, though Degner (figure 5) fails to teach another protection layer, covering the plurality of driving elements 60, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use another protection layer in the invention of Degner because a skilled artisan knows that another protection layer would protect the driving elements from eternal forces and from peeling. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the claimed invention. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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. /DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 7/6/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Nov 26, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Feb 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
May 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 02, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 09, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707649
STACKED 3D CACHE CONFIGURATION WITH ON-CHIP POWER SUPPORT
3y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12707989
POWER SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12702038
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FLUXLESS THERMOCOMPRESSION BONDING
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12690446
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING THROUGH VIA AND METHOD OF MAKING
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12685159
3D INTEGRATED CHIPS WITH MICROFLUIDIC COOLING
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 813 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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