Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/212,652

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
KHALIFA, MOATAZ
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
94%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 94% — above average
94%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 53 resolved
+26.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
98
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
70.6%
+30.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 53 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, Species 1A in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 06/21/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, US 20220085260 A1 (Lee ‘260). Regarding claim 1; Lee ‘260 teaches a display device comprising: First (ELT1), second (ELT3), third (ELT4), and fourth (ELT2) alignment electrodes sequentially arranged while being spaced from each other along a first direction (X) in a first emission area (PXL); a bank on the first (ELT1), second (ELT3), third (ELT4), and fourth (ELT2) alignment electrodes, the bank comprising first (see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260 shared in this OA for convenience) and second (see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260 shared in this OA) horizontal extension parts extending in the first direction (X) and first (BNK1), second (BNK2), and third (BNK3) vertical extension parts extending in a second direction (Z) crossing the first direction (X), the bank partitioning the first emission area (First Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260) and a second emission area (Second Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260); first light emitting (LD1) elements overlapping with the first alignment electrode (ELT1) and the second alignment electrode (ELT3); second light emitting elements (LD2) overlapping with the second alignment electrode (ELT3) and the third alignment electrode (ELT4); and third light emitting elements (LD3) overlapping with the third alignment electrode (ELT4) and the fourth alignment electrode (ELT2), wherein the first alignment electrode (ELT1) overlaps with the first vertical extension part (BNK1) and the first emission area (First Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260), and wherein the fourth alignment electrode (ELT2) overlaps with the first emission area (First Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260), the second emission area (Second Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260), and the second vertical extension part (BNK2). PNG media_image1.png 819 706 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 608 492 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2; Lee ‘260 teaches wherein, when the first (LD1), second (LD2), and third (LD3) light emitting elements are aligned, the first alignment electrode (ELT1) and the third (ELT4) alignment electrode are configured to receive a first alignment signal, and the second alignment electrode (ELT3) and the fourth alignment electrode (ELT2) are configured to receive a second alignment signal (see paragraph [0179] of the specification of Lee ‘260: “[0179] The first and second electrodes ELT1 and ELT2 may receive a first alignment signal (or a first alignment voltage) and a second alignment signal (or a second alignment voltage), respectively, in an alignment step of the light emitting elements LD."). Regarding claim 3; Lee ‘260 teaches wherein the first alignment signal is different from the second alignment signal (see paragraph [0179] of the specification of Lee ‘260: “[0179] The first and second electrodes ELT1 and ELT2 may receive a first alignment signal (or a first alignment voltage) and a second alignment signal (or a second alignment voltage), respectively, in an alignment step of the light emitting elements LD."), and wherein a planar shape of the first alignment electrode (ELT1) is identical to a planar shape of the fourth alignment electrode (ELT2). Regarding claim 6; Lee ‘260 teaches further comprising a first pixel electrode (ELT1), a first connection electrode (CNE1), a second connection electrode (CNE2), and a second pixel electrode (ELT4), in each of the first emission area (First Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260) and the second emission area (Second Emission Area – see annotated Fig (8) of Lee ‘260), that are spaced from each other along the first direction. Regarding claim 7; Lee ‘260 wherein the first light emitting elements (LD1) are connected in parallel between the first pixel electrode (ELT1) and the first connection electrode (CNE2), wherein the second light emitting elements (LD2) are connected in parallel between the first connection electrode (CNE2) and the second connection electrode (CNE3), and wherein the third light emitting elements (LD3) are connected in parallel between the second connection electrode (CNE3) and the second pixel electrode (ELT4). Regarding claim 8; Lee ‘260 teaches wherein the first light emitting elements (LD1), the second light emitting elements (LD2), and the third light emitting elements (LD3) are connected in series. Regarding claim 9; Lee ‘260 wherein the first pixel electrode (ELT1) overlaps with a portion of the first alignment electrode (ELT1), wherein the first connection electrode (CNE2) overlaps with a portion of the second alignment electrode (ELT3), wherein the second connection electrode (CNE3) overlaps with a portion of the third alignment electrode (ELT4), and wherein the second pixel electrode (ELT4) overlaps with a portion of the fourth alignment electrode (ELT2) (see Fig (7) of Lee ‘260). 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. Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20220085260 A1 (Lee ‘260) in view of Lee et al, US 20210391503 A1 (Lee ‘503). Regarding claim 4; Lee ‘260 teaches all the limitations of claim 3. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach wherein each of the first alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode comprises a first branch electrode and a second branch electrode extending in the second direction and overlapping with the bank Lee ‘503 teaches wherein each of the first alignment electrode (EL1) and the fourth alignment electrode (EL3) comprises a first branch (branch extended along DR2) electrode and a second branch (branch extended along DR1) electrode extending in the second direction (DR2) and overlapping with the bank (BNK3). Lee ‘260 and Lee ‘503 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by making the first and fourth alignment electrodes branched as disclosed in Lee ‘503 to make establishing connections with the light emitting elements easier leading to a more efficient device production process. PNG media_image3.png 888 625 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5; Lee ‘260 in view of Lee ‘503 teach all the limitations of claim 4. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach wherein the first branch electrode and the second branch electrode respectively overlap with emission areas adjacent to each other. Lee ‘503 teaches wherein the first branch electrode (the first branch of EL1) and the second branch electrode (Second branch of EL1) respectively overlap with emission areas adjacent to each other. Lee ‘260 and Lee ‘503 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by making the first and second branch electrodes overlap the light emission areas as disclosed in Lee ‘503 to make establishing connections with the light emitting elements easier leading to a more efficient device production process. Regarding claim 13; Lee ‘260 teaches all the limitations of claim 2. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach further comprising fifth, sixth, and seventh alignment electrodes sequentially arranged while being spaced from each other along the first direction in the second emission area, wherein the seventh alignment electrode overlaps with the second emission area and the third vertical extension part. Lee ‘503 teaches further comprising fifth (EL5-_0), sixth (EL6_0), and seventh (EL8_0) alignment electrodes sequentially arranged while being spaced from each other along the first direction (DR1) in the second emission area, wherein the seventh alignment electrode (EL8_0) overlaps with the second emission area and the third vertical extension part (BNK) (see paragraph [0326] of the specification of Lee ‘260: “[0326] The fifth to eighth alignment electrodes EL5_0, EL6_0, EL7_0, and EL8_0 may extend in the second direction DR2 and may be disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction DR1. The fifth to eighth alignment electrodes EL5_0, EL6_0, EL7_0, and EL8_0 may extend up to another pixel area. For example, the fifth to eighth alignment electrodes EL5_0, EL6_0, EL7_0, and EL8_0 may be disposed to intersect a second opening OP2 of the bank BNK in a plan view. The fifth to eighth alignment electrodes EL5_0, EL6_0, EL7_0, and EL8_0 may be disposed to intersect an open area OA in a plan view. The fifth to eighth alignment electrodes EL5_0, EL6_0, EL7_0, and EL8_0 may be electrodes before the first to eighth electrodes EL1_1, EL2_1, EL3_1, EL4_1, EL5, EL6, EL7, and EL8 described with reference to FIG. 15 (and FIG. 12) are separated from other electrodes (e.g., electrodes of an adjacent pixel)"). Lee ‘260 and Lee ‘503 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by making the fifth to seventh alignment electrodes separated in the first direction as disclosed in Lee ‘503 to avoid short circuits and cross talk between the different electrical signals carrying lines leading to a more reliable device. PNG media_image4.png 827 659 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 14; Lee ‘260 in view of Lee ‘503 teaches all the limitations of claim 13. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach wherein, when the first, second, and third light emitting elements are aligned, the sixth alignment electrode is configured to receive the second alignment signal, and the fifth alignment electrode and the seventh alignment electrode are configured to receive the first alignment signal. Lee ‘503 teaches wherein, when the first (LD1), second (LD2), and third (LD3) light emitting elements are aligned, the sixth alignment electrode (EL6_0) is configured to receive the second alignment signal, and the fifth alignment electrode (EL5_0) and the seventh alignment electrode (EL8_0) are configured to receive the first alignment signal (see paragraph [0331] of the specification of Lee ‘503: “"[0331] As described with reference to FIG. 17, the first voltage V1, the second voltage V2 (i.e., an intermediate electrode between the first voltage V1 and the third voltage V3), the third voltage V3, and the first voltage V1 are respectively applied to the fifth alignment electrode EL5_0, the sixth alignment electrode EL6_0, the seventh alignment electrode EL7_0, and the eighth alignment electrode EL8_0, so that the light emitting elements LD can be aligned in the series/parallel hybrid structure."). Lee ‘260 and Lee ‘503 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by allocating second signal to the fifth alignment electrode and the first signal to the fifth and seventh alignment electrodes as disclosed in Lee ‘503 to make the alignment process of the light emitting elements easier leading to a more efficient device production process. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20220085260 A1 (Lee ‘260) in further view of Park et al, US 20220181382 A1 (Park) Regarding claim 10; Lee ‘260 teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Further, Lee ‘260 teaches wherein the first pixel electrode (ELT1) is electrically connected to a transistor (T) thereunder through a first contact hole. PNG media_image5.png 869 740 media_image5.png Greyscale However, Lee ‘260 does not teach the first pixel electrode contacts the transistor at a portion not overlapping with the first alignment electrode. Park teaches the first pixel electrode (EL1) contacts the transistor (M) at a portion not overlapping with the first alignment electrode (ALE1). Lee ‘260 and Park are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by making the first pixel electrode contact the transistor in an area that does not overlap the first alignment electrode as disclosed in Park to minimize the risk of a short circuit or cross talk between the electrodes leading to a more reliable device. PNG media_image6.png 854 647 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 680 942 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 12; Lee ‘260 teaches all the limitations of claim 9. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach wherein the first pixel electrode is insulated from the first alignment electrode, and wherein the second pixel electrode is insulated from the fourth alignment electrode. Park teaches wherein the first pixel electrode (ELT1) is insulated from the first alignment electrode (ALE1), and wherein the second pixel electrode (ELT4) is insulated from the fourth alignment electrode (ALE4). Lee ‘260 and Park are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by insulating the first pixel electrode from the first alignment electrode and the second pixel electrode from the fourth alignment electrode as disclosed in Park to lower the chances of shot circuits and cross talking between the electrodes leading to a more reliable device. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20220085260 A1 (Lee ‘260) in view of Lee et al, US 20220013509 A1 (Lee ‘509). Regarding claim 11; Lee ‘260 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. However, Lee ‘260 does not teach wherein the second pixel electrode is electrically connected to a power line thereunder through a second contact hole at a portion not overlapping with the fourth alignment electrode. Lee ‘509 teaches wherein the second pixel electrode (EL3) is electrically connected to a power line (DVL) thereunder through a second contact hole at a portion not overlapping with the fourth alignment electrode (EL2). Lee ‘260 and Lee ‘509 are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee ‘260 by making the second pixel electrode contact a second power line through a second contact hole in an area that does not overlap with the fourth alignment electrode as disclosed in Lee ‘509 to prevent the possibilities of short circuits and cross talking between the electrodes leading to a more reliable device. PNG media_image8.png 844 738 media_image8.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00). 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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. /MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604572
THIN-FILM LED ARRAY WITH LOW REFRACTIVE INDEX PATTERNED STRUCTURES AND REFLECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593737
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588514
ELECTRONIC PART AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588332
DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING COLOR CONVERSION AND COLOR REINFORCEMENT PATTERNS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581783
LIGHT SOURCE MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
94%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-6.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 53 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