Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/289,099

Display Substrate and Display Device

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
VU, HUNG K
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
861 granted / 984 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1014
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 984 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 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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0328578, hereinafter Li et al.’578) in view of Li et al. (CN 113224110A, of record, hereinafter Li et al.’110). Li et al.’578 discloses, as shown in Figures 3B-16C, a display substrate comprising: a base substrate (21); a light emitting element (23), located on the base substrate and comprising a first electrode (231), a second electrode (232), and a light emitting functional layer (233) located between the first electrode and the second electrode; a pixel defining layer (PDL), comprising a pixel defining part and an opening configured to expose at least a part of the first electrode (231); and a filling layer (EPL), located on a side of the second electrode away from the base substrate. Li et al.’578 does not disclose the pixel defining part comprises a light extraction structure, and a refractive index of the filling layer is greater than a refractive index of the light extraction structure. However, Li et al.’110 discloses a pixel defining part comprises a light extraction structure (300). Note Figures 1-8 and [0073]-[0079]of Li et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the pixel defining part of Li et al.’578 comprising a light extraction structure, such as taught by Li et al.’110 in order to further improve the light emitting uniformity of the light emitting device. Regarding claim 2, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose a lateral surface of the light extraction structure is a total reflection interface (Figure 1). Regarding claim 3, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the pixel defining part further comprises a main body (210, polymer), and a refractive index of the main body is different from the refractive index of the light extraction structure (Ag) ([0073]-[0079] polymer and Ag have different refractive index). Regarding claim 4, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the light extraction structure is at least located on a lateral surface of the main body (Figure 1). Regarding claim 5, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the main body is at least located on a lateral surface of the light extraction structure (Figure 1). Regarding claim 6, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the light extraction structure comprises a conductive reflective layer (Ag) ([0073]-[0079]). Regarding claim 7, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the display substrate further comprising a first conductive element (transistor, source electrode, drain electrode 24,243,244), wherein the second electrode is connected with the first conductive element through the light extraction structure (Figures 3B,6,9,16C). Regarding claim 8, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the first conductive element and the first electrode are located in the same layer (22) (Figures 3B,6,9,16C). Regarding claim 9, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose further comprising a second conductive element (active layer 242), wherein the first conductive element is connected with the second conductive element Regarding claim 10, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose further comprising a pixel circuit (not shown, [0075]), wherein the first electrode is connected with the pixel circuit, the pixel circuit is configured to drive the light emitting element, and the second conductive element is insulated from the pixel circuit. Regarding claim 11, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose area of a surface of the light extraction structure away from the base substrate is smaller than area of a surface of the light extraction structure close to the base substrate, and area of an end of the opening away from the base substrate is larger than area of an end of the opening close to the base substrate (Figure 3B of Li et al.’578 and Figure 1 of Li et al.’110) Regarding claim 12, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the main body is located on a side of the light extraction structure away from the base substrate (Figures). Regarding claim 13, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose a maximum thickness of the main body is smaller than a maximum thickness of the light extraction structure (Figures). Regarding claim 14, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose a largest dimension of a part of the filling layer located in the opening in a direction perpendicular to a main surface of the base substrate is greater than or equal to a smallest dimension of the light emitting element in the direction perpendicular to the main surface of the base substrate (Figure 3B). Regarding claim 15, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the largest dimension of the part of the filling layer located in the opening in the direction perpendicular to the main surface of the base substrate is greater than or equal to 1.2 times the smallest dimension of the light emitting element in the direction perpendicular to the main surface of the base substrate (Figure 3B). Regarding claim 16, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose a difference between the refractive index of the filling layer and the refractive index of the light extraction structure is greater than or equal to 0.2 (refractive index of EPL (SiN, [0093]) is 1.7, refractive index of Ag is 0.135). Regarding claim 17, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the refractive index of the filling layer (SiN, [0093]) is greater than or equal to 1.7, and the refractive index of the light extraction structure (Ag) is less than or equal to 1.5. Regarding claim 18, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose the display substrate further comprising an encapsulation layer (35, Figure 9), wherein the encapsulation layer is configured to encapsulate the light emitting element, and the encapsulation layer is located on a side of the filling layer away from the base substrate. Regarding claim 19, Li et al.’578 and Li et al.’110 disclose a display device comprising the display substrate according to claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm. 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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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. /HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604678
VERTICAL PHASE CHANGE SWITCH UTILIZING A THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE SIDEWALL DIELECTRIC FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY HEATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593480
Cell Design for MOS-controlled Power Semiconductor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593724
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581781
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE FOR IMPLEMENTING WHITE LIGHT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12552680
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING INORGANIC OXIDE PARTICLE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING INORGANIC OXIDE LAYER, AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING INORGANIC OXIDE LAYER MANUFACTURED BY THE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 984 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