Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/204,961

DISPLAY DEVICE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF AND MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT FOR FORMING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
BREVAL, ELMITO
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Lite-On Technology Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
1052 granted / 1380 resolved
+8.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1423
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1380 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH et al.(US. Pub: 2020/0357967 A1~ hereinafter “OH”) of record in view of Harada et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0221550 A1~hereinafter “Harada”). Regarding claim 1, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) a display device, comprising: a substrate (200; [0100]); a plurality of electrical connection groups (240, 250, 260; [0100]-[0101]) formed in the substrate; a plurality of light-emitting elements (400; best seen in at least figs. 17-23) disposed on the substrate, wherein each of the light-emitting elements (400) is electrically connected to the corresponding electrical connection group (see figs. 17-23); a light-transmitting plate (300, 521) covering the light-emitting elements (see at least fig. 5, 15-23). OH does not expressly disclose an adhesive layer formed between the light-transmitting plate and each of the light-emitting elements and continuously bridging the light-emitting elements. However, OH discloses (in at least fig. 15; [0085]) “the light transmission 300 may be fixed to the upper surface 131 of the body 100 by an adhesive.” Harada discloses (in at least fig. 1) a light-emitting device comprised of, in part, an adhesive layer (13; [0063]; [0065]) formed between the light-transmitting plate (40; [0064]) and each of the light-emitting elements (20) and continuously bridging the light-emitting elements (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the adhesive of OH as disclosed by Harada, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) a sealant (not shown; [0074]; [0132]) combining the substrate (200) with the light-transmitting plate (300, 521), and surrounding the light-emitting elements (400). Regarding claim 3, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) a patterned light-shielding layer (100) formed on the substrate (200) and having a plurality of recesses (110), wherein each of the recesses accommodates the corresponding light-emitting element (400). Regarding claim 4, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) the patterned light-shielding layer (100) has a first top surface (see at least fig. 5), each of the light-emitting elements (400) has a second top surface, and the first top surface is higher than each of the second top surfaces (see at least fig. 5). Regarding claim 5, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) each of the light-emitting elements (400) comprises a first electrode (230) and a second electrode (220), and the first electrode (220) and the second electrode (230) are located on the same side of the corresponding light-emitting element (400). Regarding claim 6, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) each of the electrical connection groups (240, 250, 260) comprises: a first transmission line (i.e. the first transmission line is formed between the first electrode 230 and the electrical connection group 240; see at least fig. 5); and a second transmission line (i.e. the second transmission line is formed between the second electrode 220 and the electrical connection group 260) connected to the second electrode of the corresponding light-emitting element (400); wherein the first electrode (230) of each light-emitting element (400) is connected to the first transmission line of the corresponding electrical connection group through a first conductive hole (see at least fig. 5). Regarding claim 7, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) the substrate (200) comprises: a dielectric layer ([0063]), wherein the first electrode (230) and the second electrode (220) of each light-emitting element (400) are disposed on the dielectric layer, the dielectric layer (200) covers the first transmission line (see at least fig. 5) and the second transmission line (see at least fig. 5) of each electrical connection group (see at least fig. 5), and the first conductive hole penetrates the dielectric layer to connect the corresponding first electrode (230) with the corresponding first transmission line (see at least fig. 5). Regarding claim 8, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) each of the electrical connection groups (240, 250, 260) comprises a second conductive hole (see at least fig. 5), the second conductive hole penetrates through the dielectric layer (200) to connect the corresponding second electrode (220) with the second corresponding transmission line (see at least fig. 5). Regarding claim 9, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) the first electrode (230) of at least one of the light-emitting elements (400) is shaped as a circle, an ellipse or a polygon (best seen in at least fig. 13). Regarding claim 10, OH discloses (in at least figs. 5-23) the first electrode (230) and the second electrode (220) of at least one of the light-emitting elements (400) are disposed concentrically, and the second electrode (220) surrounds the first electrode. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30. 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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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. ELMITO BREVAL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604529
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604576
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595409
HIGH LUMINOUS EFFICACY PHOSPHOR CONVERTED WHITE LEDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595888
Broad View Headlamp
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593600
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1380 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