Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/229,548

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
HENRY, CALEB E
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1052 granted / 1217 resolved
+18.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1265
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
36.3%
-3.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1217 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (20220069255), in view Chang (8853698). PNG media_image1.png 557 712 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 565 737 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, You teaches an display device (fig. 18 and 19) comprising: a substrate (100) including a display area (DA) and a peripheral area (NDA) surrounding the display area; a thin-film transistor (TFT) disposed on the display area of the substrate; and a pixel electrode (211) disposed on the thin-film transistor and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor, the pixel electrode including: a lower layer including titanium nitride (TiN) (L1; par. 114 and 115), an intermediate layer disposed on the lower layer and including an aluminum alloy (L2; par. 114 and 115); and an upper layer disposed on the intermediate layer and including transparent conductive oxide (e.g. ITO, IZO, ZnO, In.sub.2O.sub.3, IGO, or AZO). You fails to teach: an upper layer disposed on the intermediate layer and including titanium oxide Chang teaches an pixel electrode being composed of transparent conductive oxides, such as ITO, AZO, indium titanium oxide (ITiO) and other transparent conductive materials. Chang shows that when choosing transparent conductive oxide materials to be used for the pixel electrode, materials such as ITO, AZO and ITiO are known functionally equivalent materials. It would have been within the scope of a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to combine the teachings of Chang with You since simple substitution of one known material (e.g. ITO, AZO) for another to known material (e.g. ITiO) to obtain predictable results is a known motivation in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s). Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor. Regarding claim 2, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 1, further comprising a pad portion (You, fig. 19: 211P) disposed on the peripheral area of the substrate (fig. 19 shows 211P in the peripheral area NDA1) and including a first pad electrode layer (211P: L3) and a second pad electrode layer (211P: L1) disposed on the first pad electrode layer, wherein the second pad electrode layer includes a same material as a material of the lower layer (please see figures above). Regarding claim 3, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 2, wherein the second pad electrode layer contacts the first pad electrode layer (all layers in 211P stack are conductive). Regarding claim 4, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 2, wherein the thin-film transistor (TFT) includes a source region and a drain region on the substrate (ACT), a gate electrode (GE), a source electrode electrically connected to the source region (SE), and a drain electrode electrically connected to the drain region (DE), wherein the first pad electrode layer includes a same material as a material of the source electrode and the drain electrode (You, par. 108). Regarding claim 5, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 4, wherein the lower layer contacts the source electrode or the drain electrode (You: 211P is connected via 213). Regarding claim 9, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 1, further comprising: an emission layer (You: 212b) disposed on the pixel electrode; an opposite electrode (You: 213) disposed on the emission layer; and a thin-film encapsulation layer (You: ENL) disposed on the opposite electrode. Regarding claim 10, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 9, further comprising red, green and blue color filters disposed on the thin-film encapsulation layer (par. 66). Regarding claim 11, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 9, wherein the emission layer is unitary on the substrate (see You 212b above). Regarding claim 12, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a semiconductor substrate (You, par. 60). Regarding claim 13, You teaches an display device (fig. 18 and 19) comprising: a substrate (100) including a display area (DA) and a peripheral area (NDA) surrounding the display area; a thin-film transistor (TFT) disposed on the display area of the substrate; and a pixel electrode (211) disposed on the thin-film transistor and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor, the pixel electrode including: the pixel electrode including: a lower layer including titanium nitride (TiN) (L1; par. 114 and 115), an intermediate layer disposed on the lower layer and including an aluminum alloy (L2; par. 114 and 115); and an upper layer disposed on the intermediate layer and including transparent conductive oxide (e.g. ITO, IZO, ZnO, In.sub.2O.sub.3, IGO, or AZO), and a pad portion (You, fig. 19: 211P) disposed on the peripheral area of the substrate (fig. 19 shows 211P in the peripheral area NDA1) and including a first pad electrode layer (211P: L3) and a second pad electrode layer (211P: L1) disposed on the first pad electrode layer, wherein the second pad electrode layer includes a same material as a material of the lower layer (please see figures above). You fails to teach: an upper layer disposed on the intermediate layer and including titanium oxide Chang teaches an pixel electrode being composed of transparent conductive oxides, such as ITO, AZO, indium titanium oxide (ITiO) and other transparent conductive materials. Chang shows that when choosing transparent conductive oxide materials to be used for the pixel electrode, materials such as ITO, AZO and ITiO are known functionally equivalent materials. It would have been within the scope of a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to combine the teachings of Chang with You since simple substitution of one known material (e.g. ITO, AZO) for another to known material (e.g. ITiO) to obtain predictable results is a known motivation in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s). Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor. Regarding claim 14, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 13, wherein the pad portion includes a first pad electrode layer and a second pad electrode layer disposed on the first pad electrode layer (please see rejection for claim 13 above). Regarding claim 15, You, in view Chang, teaches an display device of claim 14, wherein the thin-film transistor (TFT) includes a source region and a drain region on the substrate (ACT), a gate electrode (GE), a source electrode electrically connected to the source region (SE), and a drain electrode electrically connected to the drain region (DE), wherein the first pad electrode layer includes a same material as a material of the source electrode and the drain electrode (You, par. 108). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is 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. Claim 7 is objected to based on its dependence on claim 6. Claim 8 is objected to based on its dependence on claim 6. Claim 16 is 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. Claim 17 is objected to based on its dependence on claim 16. Claim 18 is objected to based on its dependence on claim 16. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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. /CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604596
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELL WITH AN IMPROVED HOLE TRANSPORT LAYER AND A PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELL WITH AN IMPROVED HOLE TRANSPORT LAYER MANUFACTURED BY THE SAME METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604650
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE USING PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY TECHNIQUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598801
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE OF PHYSICAL UNCLONABLE FUNCTION AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588440
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR ETCHING USING OXDIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584068
COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC ELECTRIC ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTRIC ELEMENT USING THE SAME, AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
86%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1217 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