Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/224,296

ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 20, 2023
Examiner
BREVAL, ELMITO
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0043705 A1~ hereinafter “Lim”) of record in view of Kim (EP: 3496177). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Lim discloses (in at least figs. 4 and 9H) an organic light emitting diode display device, comprising: a substrate (111) having first and second subpixels (P1, P2); an interlayer insulating layer (115; [0053]) on the substrate and having a trench (T; [0053]) between the first and second subpixels; a first electrode (120) disposed on the interlayer insulating layer in each of the first and second subpixels (see at least fig. 4); a bank layer (125) covering an edge portion of the first electrode and exposing a central portion of the first electrode (120); an emitting layer (130) and a second electrode (140) sequentially disposed on the bank layer (125) and the first electrode (120) exposed through the bank layer (see at least fig. 4); and a passivation layer (150) disposed on the second electrode (140). Lim does not expressly disclose the passivation layer wrapping the emitting layer and the second electrode, wherein the passivation layer contacts a sidewall of the trench, a side of the emitting layer, a side surface of the electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode. Kim discloses a display device (title; at least fig. 7) comprised of, in part, a passivation layer (271; abstract; fig. 7) disposed on the second electrode (263), and wrapped the light-emitting layer (262) and the second electrode (263), wherein the passivation layer (271) contacts a side wall of the trench (EH1), a side of the emitting layer (262), a side surface of the electrode (263), and a top surface of the second electrode (263) in order to prevent oxygen and/or moisture from penetrating into the light-emitting element layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the organic light emitting diode display device of Lim with the passivation layer teaching of Kim for the benefit of preventing oxygen and/or moisture from penetrating into the light-emitting element layer. Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses (at least fig. 7) the passivation layer (TFE1) extends to cover a top surface and a side surface of the emitting layer (172) and the second electrode (173) and contacts a sidewall of the trench (see fig. 10). Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the emitting layer (130) includes a first stack (130a; [0073]-[0074]) on the first electrode (120), a charge generating layer (131b, 132b) on the first stack and a second stack (131c, 132c) on the charge generating layer. Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and the second electrode (140) at the trench are insulated from each other. Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 9) an oxidation portion having an insulation property disposed at an approaching portion of the charge generating layer and the second electrode and disposed over the trench ([0186]; i.e. as the insulating layer is heated, it is understood that an oxidation portion is disposed at an approaching portion of the charge generating layer and the second electrode and disposed over the trench). Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lim as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second electrode at the trench is smaller than a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second stack and the second electrode at other portion except for the trench. However, Lim discloses ([0092]) “the charge generating layer 130b has high resistance as its thickness becomes thin in the trench T. Lim further discloses (in at least [0073]) “A width of the trench T may be designed considering a thickness of each of first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a, charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c of the light emitting layer 130 and the second electrode 140.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming a thickness of each of the first stack of Lim, the charge generating layer, the second electrode at the trench is smaller than a thickness of each of the first stack, the charge generating layer, the second stack and the second electrode at other portion except for the trench, since it has been held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 7-5, 16 and 17, Lim as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose a width of the trench is equal to or greater than 0.6 times of a thickness of the emitting layer; and a width of the trench is equal to or smaller than 1.0 μm. However, Lim discloses (in at least [0078]) “an optimal width of the trench T may be varied depending on a thickness of each of the second electrode 140, the first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a of the light emitting layer 130, the charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and the second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c.” Lim further discloses ([0073]) “A width of the trench T may be designed considering a thickness of each of first stacks 131a, 132a, and 133a, charge generating layers 131b, 132b, and 133b and second stacks 131c, 132c, and 133c of the light emitting layer 130 and the second electrode 140.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the width of the trench of Lim equal to or greater than 0.6 times of a thickness of the emitting layer and equal to or smaller than 1.0 μm, since it has been held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Lim and Kim discloses (in at least fig. 4 Lim; fig. 7 Kim) a thin film transistor (TFT) between the substrate (111) and the interlayer insulating layer (115) in each of the first and second subpixels, and the thin film transistor connected to the first electrode (120); and first, second and third encapsulating layers (271, 272, 273) sequentially disposed on the passivation layer (150). Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the passivation layer (150) is formed through an atomic layer deposition method ([0138]). Regarding claim 12, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the forming the emitting layer comprises: forming a first stack (130a) on the first electrode; forming a charge generating layer (131b, 132b) on the first stack; and forming a second stack (131c, 132c) on the charge generating layer. Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and the second electrode (140) at the trench (T) are insulated from each other. Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) contacts a sidewall of the trench (T) and a side surface of the first stack (130a) and the passivation layer (150) contacts a top surface of the second electrode (140). Lim does not expressly disclose the passivation layer contacts the sidewall of the trench, a side surface of the charge generating layer, a side surface of the second electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode. However, Lim discloses (in at least fig. 4) a second passivation layer (160) contacts the sidewall of the trench (T), a side surface of the second electrode (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the two passivation layers of Lim as one, wherein it contacts the sidewall of the trench, a side surface of the charge generating layer, a side surface of the second electrode, and a top surface of the second electrode in order to reduce the manufacturing steps. Also, it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new an unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 20, Lim discloses (in at least figs. 4 and 9) the oxidation portion includes a first oxidation portion which is an oxide of the charge generating layer (131b, 132b) and a second oxidation portion which is an oxide of the second electrode ([0186]; i.e. it is understood that this is happened when the insulating layer is heated). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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

Jul 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 17, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 23, 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