Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/325,641

Electronic device and method for manufacturing the same

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 30, 2023
Examiner
KIM, SU C
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Innolux Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
695 granted / 899 resolved
+9.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -12% lift
Without
With
+-12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
947
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 899 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. 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 Hu et al. (US 20190258104) in view of Zheng (US 20160187701). Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses that an electronic device, comprising: a first substrate 001 (Fig. 1g); a second substrate 002 disposed opposite to the first substrate; a plurality of first electrodes disposed on the first substrate; an insulating layer 007 (para. 0015) disposed between the first substrate 001 and the plurality of first electrodes (para. 0014, note: pixel electrode) ; and a first spacer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate. Hu fails to teach that the insulating layer has a first opening, the first opening comprises a first enlarged part, and the first enlarged part and the first spacer are overlapped in a normal direction of the first substrate and wherein the first spacer and the plurality of the first electrodes are not overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate. Zheng suggests that the insulating layer 305-307 has a first opening, the first opening comprises a first enlarged part d3, or d2, or d1 (Fig. 3), and the first enlarged part and the first spacer are overlapped in a normal direction of the first substrate 320 and the plurality of the first electrodes 308 are not overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate 320 (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Hu with insulating layer has a first opening, the first opening comprises a first enlarged part, and the first enlarged part and the first spacer are overlapped in a normal direction of the first substrate and wherein the first spacer and the plurality of the first electrodes are not overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate as taught by Zheng in order to improve the quality of a panel by avoid dislocation therebetween in the plane pressure from the outside (para. 0080) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Reclaim 2, Hu & Zheng disclose that the plurality of first electrodes 308 are arranged along a first direction, and there is a first spacing area between two adjacent first electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes 308; wherein the first spacing area and the first opening are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate 320 (Fig. 3, Zhen). Reclaim 3, Hu & Zheng disclose that a width of the first spacing area is greater than a width of the first opening in the first direction (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3, due to a shape of Hu’s spacer). Reclaim 4, Hu & Zheng disclose that the plurality of first electrodes are arranged along a first direction, and a width of the first opening ranges from 1.5 um to 120 um in the first direction (Zheng, para. 0051). Reclaim 5, Hu & Zheng disclose that a second spacer disposed between the first substrate and second substrate, wherein the insulating layer has a second opening, the second opening comprises a second enlarged part, the second enlarged part and the second spacer are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate, and a size of the first enlarged part is different from a size of the second enlarged part (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3, a height of space from the a top surface of the first substrate that is varied due to recess). Reclaim 6, Hu & Zheng disclose that a height of the first spacer is greater than a height of the second spacer (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3, a height of space from the a top surface of the first substrate that is varied due to recess). Reclaim 7, Hu & Zheng disclose that a light shielding unit 010 disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the second opening and the light shielding unit are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3). Reclaim 8, Hu & Zheng disclose that a part of the first substrate 10 is exposed from the first opening in the normal direction of the first substrate (Yamamoto’s Fig. 3A & 5B). Reclaim 9, Hu & Zheng disclose that in a cross-sectional view, the insulating layer has a bottom surface and a side surface, the side surface is adjacent to the first opening, and an included angle between the bottom surface and the side surface ranges (Zheng, Fig. 3). Hu & Zheng fail to specify that the side surface is adjacent to the first opening, and an included angle between the bottom surface and the side surface ranges from 35° to 65°. However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain range of angle between the bottom surface and the side surface, because it would have been to obtain a certain range of angle between the bottom surface and the side surface to achieve enhancing placing of the space. Reclaim 10, Hu & Zheng disclose that a light shielding unit 010 disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the first opening and the light shielding unit are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2). Regarding claim 11, Hu & Zheng disclose that a method for manufacturing an electronic device, comprising the following steps: providing a first substrate 001; forming an insulating layer 007 on the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2); forming a conductive layer 308 on the insulating layer 305-308 (Fig. 3); patterning the insulating layer 305-307 to make the insulating layer has a first opening (Zheng, Fig. 3); and patterning the conductive layer 308 to form a plurality of first electrodes, wherein there is a first spacing area between two adjacent first electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes, and the first spacing area and the first opening are overlapped in a normal direction of the first substrate (Zheng, Fig. 3); and providing a second substrate 002/301 and assembling the second substrate with the first substrate (Zheng, Fig. 3) wherein a first spacer 303 is disposed between the first substrate 320 and the second substrate 310, and the first spacer and the plurality of first electrodes 308 are not overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate 320 (Fig. 3). Reclaim 12, Hu & Zheng disclose that the conductive layer 308 is formed on the insulating layer after the insulating layer is patterned to make the insulating layer has the first opening (Zheng, Fig. 3). Reclaim 13, Hu & Zheng disclose that the insulating layer 305-307 is patterned to make the insulating layer has the first opening d1-d3 after the conductive layer 308 is formed on the insulating layer 305-307. Reclaim 14, Hu & Zheng disclose that the plurality of first electrodes 308 are arranged along a first direction, and a width of the first spacing area is greater than a width of the first opening in the first direction (Zheng, Fig. 3). Reclaim 15, Hu & Zheng disclose that the plurality of first electrodes are arranged along a first direction, and a width of the first opening ranges from 1.5 um to 120 um in the first direction (Zheng, para. 0051). Reclaim 16, Hu & Zheng disclose that a part of the first substrate is exposed from the first opening in the normal direction of the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2). Reclaim 17, Hu & Zheng disclose that in a cross-sectional view, the insulating layer has a bottom surface and a side surface, the side surface is adjacent to the first opening, and an included angle between the bottom surface and the side surface ranges (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3). Hu & Zheng fail to specify that the side surface is adjacent to the first opening, and an included angle between the bottom surface and the side surface ranges from 35° to 65°. However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain range of angle between the bottom surface and the side surface, because it would have been to obtain a certain range of angle between the bottom surface and the side surface to achieve enhancing placing of the space. Reclaim 18, Hu & Zheng disclose that a step of providing a second substrate and assembling the second substrate with the first substrate after the step of patterning the conductive layer to form the plurality of first electrodes, wherein a first spacer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first opening comprises a first enlarged part, and the first enlarged part and the first spacer are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng Fig. 3). Reclaim 19, Hu & Zheng disclose that a second spacer 004 is disposed between the first substrate and second substrate, wherein the insulating layer 007/ 305-307 (Hu, Fig. 1g/Zheng, Fig. 3) has a second opening, the second opening comprises a second enlarged part, the second enlarged part and the second spacer are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate, and a size of the first enlarged part is different from a size of the second enlarged part (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng Fig. 3). Reclaim 20, Hu & Zheng disclose that a light shielding unit 010 is disposed between the first substrate 001 and the second substrate002, and the first opening and the light shielding unit 010 are overlapped in the normal direction of the first substrate (Hu, Fig. 2 in view of Zheng’s Fig. 3). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00. 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 571-270-7877. 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. /SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604570
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585001
OPTICAL DETECTION APPARATUS AND OPTICAL DETECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581776
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE WITH HIGH LUMINOUS EFFICIENCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581914
OPTICAL METROLOGY WITH NUISANCE FEATURE MITIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12563981
METHOD OF PROCESSING SUBSTRATE, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS, RECORDING MEDIUM, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (-12.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 899 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