Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/192,577

LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT, METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 29, 2023
Examiner
KNUDSON, BRAD ALLAN
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
73 granted / 83 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
125
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 83 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 Amendment The Amendment filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Applicant' s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and to Claim 11 have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 5, 2025, and the objections are hereby withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11 have also been considered in view of the amendments, and are hereby withdrawn. Claims 1, and 3-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 15-21 previously withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s submission filed February 4, 2026 is sufficient to establish Common Ownership of the subject matter disclosed in the cited prior art Yoo and the cited prior art Kim; therefore the 102(b)(2)(C) exception applies, and Yoo and Kim no longer qualify as 35 § U.S.C 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) references. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14, and 22-23 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 3-5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen; Jih-Kang et al. (US 2022/0384693; hereinafter Chen). Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a light emitting element (100; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0013-43]) comprising: PNG media_image1.png 597 980 media_image1.png Greyscale a light emitting element core (110; Figs 1B-1C; ¶ [0018]) comprising a first semiconductor layer (112, comprising 112A,112B; Fig 1C; ¶ [0020]), a light emitting layer on the first semiconductor layer (114; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0020]), and a second semiconductor layer (116; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0020]), on the light emitting layer; and a first element insulating layer (140, comprising protrusions 144; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0018]) surrounding a side surface of the light emitting element core, wherein an outer surface of the first element insulating layer has: a first outer surface (the surface appearing to share a same x-direction coordinate with an outer surface of 130, as shown in Fig 1B; see the annotated figure above) adjacent to one surface (S2; Fig 1B) of the first semiconductor layer, the one surface of the first semiconductor layer being opposite to another surface (an upper surface, sharing an interface with 114) of the first semiconductor layer facing the second semiconductor layer; and a second outer surface (the outer surface of the protrusion 144; Fig 1B) farther away from a side surface of the first semiconductor layer than the first outer surface is, and wherein the one surface of the first semiconductor layer has a concave shape toward a center of the first semiconductor layer (one of a plurality of concave shapes comprising the “rough texture” of surface S2; Fig 1B; ¶ [0019]). Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 1, wherein a first diameter of the first element insulating layer having the first outer surface is smaller than a second diameter of the first element insulating layer having the second outer surface (as shown in Fig 1B, as applied to claim 1; ¶ [0032]). Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 1, further comprising a second element insulating layer (130; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0018]) between the light emitting element core (110; Fig 1A) and the first element insulating layer (140/144; Fig 1A) and surrounding the side surface of the light emitting element core (110; Fig 1A), wherein the side surface of the first semiconductor layer (112; Figs 1B-1C) is in contact with both the first element insulating layer and the second element insulating layer (as shown in Figs 1B-1C). (130 is between 140 and 110 along the line in the annotated Fig 1B below.) PNG media_image2.png 531 1013 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 4, wherein the first element insulating layer (140/144; Fig 1B) has a first lower surface (S6; Fig 1B) between the first outer surface and the one surface (S2; Fig 1B; see the annotated figure under claim 1) of the first semiconductor layer and a second lower surface (S4; Fig 1B) between the first outer surface and the second outer surface (see the annotated figure under claim 1). Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 4, wherein one surface of the second element insulating layer (130; Figs 1A-1C) is covered by the first element insulating layer (140/144; Figs 1A-1C). (As circled in the figure below). PNG media_image3.png 517 913 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 4, wherein the side surface of the first semiconductor layer has a first side surface in contact with the first element insulating layer (140/144; Figs 1A-1C) and a second side surface in contact with the second element insulating layer (130; Figs 1A-1C), and wherein the first side surface is nearer to the one surface (S2; Fig 1B) of the first semiconductor layer than the second side surface is. (As annotated in the figure below.) PNG media_image4.png 528 953 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 1, wherein a first thickness (T1; Fig 1B; ¶ [0031]) of the first element insulating layer having the first outer surface is the same as a second thickness (T2; Fig 1B; ¶ [0031]) of the first element insulating layer having the second outer surface (T1 substantially equals T2; ¶ [0031]). 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen; Jih-Kang et al. (US 2022/0384693; hereinafter Chen). Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 4, comprising a first distance (T1, which may range from 0.5 um to 2.0 um; Fig 1B; ¶ [0031-32], which is a maximum distance between a first lower surface (S6; Fig 1B) of the first element insulating layer and the one surface (S2; Fig 1B) of the first semiconductor layer, and a second distance (L2, which may range from 0.2 um to 1.0 um in some embodiments; Fig 1B; ¶ [0038]), which is a maximum distance between of the first element insulating layer and a second lower surface (S4; Fig 1B) of the first element insulating layer. Chen does not disclose the first distance is greater than the second distance; however, the disclosed distances, cited above, contain an overlapping range wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (for example where T1 is greater than 1.0); and this overlapping range constitutes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Claim 14 us rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen; Jih-Kang et al. (US 2022/0384693; hereinafter Chen) in view of Lee Yong Gyeong et al. (KR-101926507-B1; hereinafter Lee). Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the light emitting element of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element core (110; Fig 1B) further comprises an element electrode layer (118B; Fig 1B; ¶ [0028]) on the second semiconductor layer (116; Fig 1B). Chen does not disclose wherein a side surface of the element electrode layer protrudes outwardly from the side surface of the first semiconductor layer. In the same field of endeavor Lee discloses a similar light emitting element (101; Fig 1; ¶ [0018]) entire document), wherein a side surface of an element electrode layer (152; Fig 1; ¶ [0040]) protrudes outwardly from a side surface of a first semiconductor layer (117; Fig 1; ¶ [0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the element electrode layer of Lee, having a protruding discharge portion 152, with the light emitting element of claim 1. One would have been motivated to do this in order to protect the light emitting element from electrostatic discharge (ESD), and provide electrical reliability (Lee; ¶ [0044]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structure of the light emitting elements and light emitting element cores of Chen and Lee. Claim 22 us rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen; Jih-Kang et al. (US 2022/0384693; hereinafter Chen) in view of Shimokawa; Kazuo (JP-2014096549-A; hereinafter Shimokawa). Regarding claim 22, Chen discloses a display device (1600; Fig 16; entire document) comprising: a light emitting element comprising: PNG media_image1.png 597 980 media_image1.png Greyscale a light emitting element core (110; Figs 1B-1C; ¶ [0018]) comprising: first semiconductor layer (112, comprising 112A,112B; Fig 1C; ¶ [0020]); light emitting layer (114; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0020]) on the first semiconductor layer; and a second semiconductor layer (116; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0020]) on the light emitting layer; and a first element insulating layer (140, comprising protrusions 144; Figs 1A-1C; ¶ [0018]) surrounding a side surface of the light emitting element core, wherein the first element insulating layer has a first outer surface adjacent (the surface appearing to share a same x-direction coordinate with an outer surface of 130, as shown in Fig 1B; see the annotated figure above) to one surface (S2; Fig 1B) of the first semiconductor layer, the one surface of the first semiconductor layer being opposite to another surface (an upper surface, sharing an interface with 114) of the first semiconductor layer facing the second semiconductor layer, and a second outer surface (the outer surface of the protrusion 144; Fig 1B) farther away from a side surface of the first semiconductor layer than the first outer surface is, and wherein the light emitting element has a second end (the end comprising 142; Fig 1B) having a concave shape toward a center of the light emitting element (one of a plurality of concave shapes comprising the “rough texture” of surface S2; Fig 1B; ¶ [0019]). Chen does not disclose the display device comprises: a first electrode and a second electrode on a substrate and spaced apart from each other; and the light emitting element between the first electrode and the second electrode. In the same field of endeavor, Shimokawa discloses a display device (¶ [0126]) comprising: a mounting component (95; Figs 6a,6b; ¶ [0089]), the mounting component comprising: a first electrode (46e; Figs 6a,6b; ¶ [0089]) and a second electrode (56e; Figs 6a,6b; ¶ [0089]) on a substrate (96; Figs 6a,6b; ¶ [0089]) and spaced apart from each other; and a light emitting element between the first electrode and the second electrode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have combined the mounting component of Shimokawa with the display device of Chen, essentially substituting the mounting component for the TFT substrate 1620 of Chen to form the display device 1600 (Chen; ¶ [0079]). One would have been motivated to do this as a suitable display substrate (TFT substrate) since Chen has not provided detail for the TFT substrate 1620 to enable the display device to function. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structures of the light-emitting elements of Chen and Shimokawa. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8, 13, and 23 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6-7, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein a first distance, which is a maximum distance between the first lower surface of the first element insulating layer and the one surface of the first semiconductor layer, is greater than a second distance, which is a maximum distance between the first lower surface of the first element insulating layer and a lower surface of the second element insulating layer”. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein a first distance, which is a maximum distance between the first lower surface of the first element insulating layer and the one surface of the first semiconductor layer, is the same as a second distance, which is a maximum distance between the first lower surface of the first element insulating layer and a lower surface of the second element insulating layer”. Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein a first thickness of the first element insulating layer at the first outer surface is less than a second thickness of the first element insulating layer at the second outer surface. Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the light emitting element has a second end having a concave shape toward a center of the light emitting element” (claim 22), and “a second connection electrode in contact with the second end of the light emitting element, wherein the second connection electrode is concave toward the center of the light emitting element.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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. /B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588552
MULTI-CHIP SEMICONDUCTOR SWITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575284
Display Panel with Transparent Areas having Improved Transmittance, and Electronic Device Comprising the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557640
THREE DIMENSIONAL (3D) MEMORY DEVICE AND FABRICATION METHOD USING SELF-ALIGNED MULTIPLE PATTERNING AND AIRGAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12557462
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550337
METAL HALIDE RESISTIVE MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 83 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