Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/235,458

PIXEL UNIT AND DISPLAY APPARATUS APPLYING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Examiner
GUMEDZOE, PENIEL M
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Epistar Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1080 granted / 1302 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1325
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1302 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Objections Claims 3-4 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 3, 18 and 19 each recites “VF”. “VF” should be preceded by a type of voltage (i.e. forward voltage, breakdown voltage etc..) so that one knows what it stands for. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 recites “a total voltage of the plurality of first light-emitting elements” (emphasis added) and independent claim 17 recites “a total voltage of the plurality of light-emitting elements” (emphasis added). It is unclear what Applicants are calling “a total voltage”. A light emitting device is conventionally characterized by four different types of voltage: forward voltage, reverse breakdown voltage, maximum forward voltage, system input voltage. It is unclear which one of those voltages Applicants are claiming as it is not specifically stated in the claims nor explicitly described in the specification (the Examiner notes here that even if Applicants were to amend the description section to further clarify the so called “total voltage”, that clarification can’t be imported into the claims as currently standing, and this as per MPEP 2145.VI). The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites “the μ-LED device has a size ranging from 100 μm to 10 μm or the mini-LED device has a size ranging from 200 μm to 100 μm.” (emphasis added) and claim 20 recites “the light emitting device includes a micro-light emitting diode (μ-LED) device having a size ranging from 100 μm to 10 μm or a mini-LED device having a size ranging from 200 μm to 100 μm.” (emphasis added). A LED is a three-dimensional structure, thus having dimension characteristics such as a length, width and thickness. As such, it is unclear which one of those dimension characteristics the limitation “a size” is referring to. Clarification is needed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baumheinrich et al. (US 2021/0166618), Chu et al. (US 2015/0230298), Ide et al. (US 2014/0097762) and Kitagawa et al. (US 2012/0133291) disclose structures similar to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM. 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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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. /PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 18, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604736
SHIELD TO REDUCE SUBSTRATE ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE AND WARPAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593394
HEAT TRANSFER FROM NON-GROUNDABLE ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593698
ELECTRONIC PACKAGE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593581
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593673
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD MAKING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+3.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1302 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