Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/233,821

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
FAROKHROOZ, FATIMA N
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
samsung display Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
400 granted / 836 resolved
-20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
68.9%
+28.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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/Restriction Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/25. Claims 10-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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)(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, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong (US 20200168838 A1) Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a display device (at least Fig.1 and 2) comprising: a substrate 180 including a light emitting area (112,114,116) and a non-light emitting area (wherein 112,114,116 are not present) adjacent to the light emitting area; a light emitting element including a light emitting layer 114 disposed in the light emitting area on the substrate; an encapsulation layer ([0048] and 120) disposed on the light emitting layer and including at least one inorganic layer and at least one organic layer ([0048]); and a plurality of light blocking patterns (321, [0081]) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein each of the plurality of light blocking patterns has an asymmetric shape (claim 6 and [0081],[0060]) with respect to a virtual center line thereof. Regarding claim 3, Hong teaches a display device (at least Fig.1 and 2), wherein an angle formed between each of the plurality of light blocking patterns and an upper surface of the encapsulation layer is an acute angle (- -or a right angle - -) See Drawing below. [AltContent: arc] PNG media_image1.png 398 447 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Hong teaches a display device (at least Fig.1 and 2), wherein each of the plurality of light blocking patterns includes (- -molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO) - - or) an organic material including a black pigment ([0037]). Regarding claim 8, Hong teaches a display device (at least Fig.1 and 2), further comprising: a light transmitting layer (310 in Fig.3B and [0057]) disposed on the encapsulation layer, covering the plurality of light blocking patterns 320, and including a transparent organic material ([0057]). 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. Claim(s) 1,2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20210217831 A1) in view of Hong and further in view of Cho (KR 20060123829 A) Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a display device (at least Fig.6) comprising: a substrate (SUB) including a light emitting area (element OR) and a non-light emitting area adjacent to the light emitting area; a light emitting element including a light emitting layer E1 disposed in the light emitting area on the substrate; an encapsulation layer TFE ([0114]) disposed on the light emitting layer and including at least one inorganic layer and at least one organic layer; and a plurality of light blocking patterns LS ([0128]) disposed on the encapsulation layer. Jung does not teach the encapsulation layer including at least one inorganic layer and at least one organic layer. Hong teaches the encapsulation layer including at least one inorganic layer and at least one organic layer ([0048] and 120) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use organic and inorganic layers for the encapsulating layer in the device of Jung in order to robust sealing. Jung in view of Hong does not teach each of the plurality of light blocking patterns has an asymmetric shape with respect to a virtual center line thereof. Cho teaches asymmetric black matrix (see at least Fig.3 and claims of Cho; although Cho teaches an LCD, it is well known to use LCD or OLED interchangeably with respect to disposing black matrix between pixels) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use asymmetric black matrix from the teachings of Cho, in the device of Jung in view of Hong in order to maximally suppress the light leaking (Abstract of Cho). Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of Hong and Cho teaches a display device, wherein each of the plurality of light blocking patterns includes: a first side surface that is flat (LS in Fig.5 or LS1 in Fig.6 in Jung); and a second side surface facing the first side surface, wherein the first and second side surfaces are bent (LS2; [0021], [0156]) but does not teach only second side surface is bent. However, since Jung already teaches both sides to be bent, using one side surface as flat and the other side surface to be bent is only considered to be obvious modifications of the shape of the light blocking layer disclosed in Jung in view of Hong and Cho, as a change in shape of one side while keeping the other side flat is within the level of skill in the art as the particular shape claimed by Applicant is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention in order to achieve the desired viewing angle based on design and desired application (see in [0099] of Jung: Therefore, the display device 10 can control the viewing angle using the plurality of light blocking patterns LS while minimizing a decrease in luminance of the display panel 300 and reducing power consumption). Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of Hong and Cho teaches a display device, wherein each of the plurality of light blocking patterns overlaps the non-light emitting area and does not overlap the light emitting area in a plan view (LS in Fig.5 and 6 of Jung). Regarding claim 6, Jung in view of Hong and Cho teaches a display device, wherein a portion of the plurality of light blocking patterns overlaps the light emitting area and another portion of the plurality of light blocking patterns overlaps the non-light emitting area in a plan view (See LS in the OR, OG and OB regions and also between these regions in Fig.17 of Jung). Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Hong and Cho teaches a display device, wherein each of the plurality of light blocking patterns extends along a first direction and the plurality of light blocking patterns are spaced apart from each other along a second direction crossing the first direction (Z and Y directions in Fig.5 and 6 of Jung). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Nak (US 20220069014 A1) Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches an intermediate layer 200 (Fig.1) to be touch sensing layer ([0031]), such that a touch sensing layer disposed between the encapsulation layer (118,120 within 100 in Fig.1) and the plurality of light blocking patterns (within 300 of Fig.1) but does not breakdown the layer to explicitly show the touch electrodes, wherein a second touch electrode is disposed on a first touch electrode and connected to the first touch electrode. Nak teaches a touch sensing layer, such that a touch sensing layer is disposed between the encapsulation layer 400 and the plurality of light blocking patterns 220 ([0092]) (see Abstract and claim 1 of Nak; a touch electrode disposed on the encapsulation layer; a light blocking portion disposed on the touch electrode) and the first touch electrode 541 and a second touch electrode 540, wherein the second touch electrode is disposed on the first touch electrode and connected to the first touch electrode and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the application was filed, to use the touch electrodes as disclosed in Nak, in the device of Hong, in order to achieve touch sensing. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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. /Fatima N Farokhrooz/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12540720
LUMINAIRE WITH SEAMLESS SPLICING FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12513989
DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND TILED DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12510786
FRONT LIGHT GUIDE MODULE, TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12510706
OPTICAL MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12486964
ELECTRONIC DEVICE, LIGHT REFLECTING MEMBER, AND INDICATOR LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
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
48%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+34.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 836 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month