Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/341,787

DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 27, 2023
Examiner
CIESLEWICZ, ANETA B
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Magnolia White Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
151 granted / 228 resolved
-1.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 228 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, covered by claim 1-10, in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are ready for examination, with claim 11-20 withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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. Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2021/0359247, hereinafter “Wang”). Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches in Fig. 1A (shown below) and related text a display device comprising: a first lower electrode (60, Fig. 1A and ¶[0039]); a rib (20, Fig. 1A and ¶[0037]) including a first pixel aperture (A, Fig. 1A and ¶[0037]) overlapping with the first lower electrode (Fig. 1A); a partition (30b, 40B, Fig. 1A and ¶¶[0037]-[0040]) arranged on the rib (20, Fig. 1A); a first upper electrode (50, Fig. 1A and ¶[0037]) opposed to the first lower electrode (60, Fig. 1A); and a first organic layer (70, Fig. 1A and ¶[0039]) which is located between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (Fig. 1A), which is in contact with the first lower electrode through the first pixel aperture, and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (¶¶[0039]-[0043]), wherein the partition (30b, 40b, Fig. 1A) includes a lower portion having a first side surface and an upper portion protruding from the first side surface (i.e. portion of 40b, protruding sideways, Fig. 1A), and the first organic layer (70, Fig. 1A) is in contact with the first side surface (Fig. 1A). PNG media_image1.png 437 721 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5 (1), Wang further teaches a second lower electrode (e.g. 60 on the right side of Fig. 1A) overlapping with a second pixel aperture of the rib (20, Fig. 1A), a second upper electrode (e.g. 50 on the right side of Fig. 1A) opposed to the second lower electrode (60, Fig. 1A), and a second organic layer (e.g. 70 on the right side of Fig. 1A) which is located between the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode, which is in contact with the second lower electrode through the second pixel aperture, and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode (¶[0039]), wherein the lower portion has a second side surface, and the second organic layer is in contact with the second side surface (Fig. 1A). Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (US CN 113471384, hereinafter “Yuan”, relying on the provided English translation). Regarding claim 1, Yuan teaches in Fig. 12 (shown below) and related text a display device comprising: a first lower electrode (111, Fig. and ¶[0076]); a rib (160, Fig. 12 and ¶[0081]) including a first pixel aperture (Fig. 12) overlapping with the first lower electrode (Fig. 12); a partition (130, Fig. 12 and ¶[0082]) arranged on the rib (Fig. 12); a first upper electrode (120, Fig. 12 and ¶[0076]) opposed to the first lower electrode (Fig. 12); and a first organic layer (EL, Fig. 12 and ¶[0078]) which is located between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (Fig. 12), which is in contact with the first lower electrode through the first pixel aperture, and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (¶[0078]), wherein the partition (130, Fig. 12) includes a lower portion (132, Fig. 12) having a first side surface and an upper portion (131, Fig. 12) protruding from the first side surface (Fig. 12), and the first organic layer (EL, Fig. 12) is in contact with the first side surface (Fig. 12). PNG media_image2.png 289 516 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2 (1), Yuan teaches wherein the lower portion (132, Fig. 12) is conductive (¶[0094]), and the first upper electrode (120, Fig. 12) is in contact with the first side surface (Fig. 12). Regarding claim 3 (1), Yuan further teaches: a first sealing layer (140, Fig. 12 and ¶[0080]) continuously covering the partition and a first display element which includes the first lower electrode, the first upper electrode, and the first organic layer (Fig. 12). Regarding claim 5 (1), Yuan further teaches a second lower electrode (e.g. 111 on the right side of Fig. 12) overlapping with a second pixel aperture of the rib (160, Fig. 12), a second upper electrode (e.g. 120 on the right side of 12) opposed to the second lower electrode (111, Fig. 12), and a second organic layer (e.g. EL on the right side of Fig. 12) which is located between the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode, which is in contact with the second lower electrode through the second pixel aperture (Fig. 12), and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode (¶[0078]), wherein the lower portion has a second side surface, and the second organic layer is in contact with the second side surface (Fig. 12). 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang or Yuan, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0102463, hereinafter “Park”). Regarding claim 9 (5), teaching of Wang or Yuan, was discussed above in the rejection of claim 5. While neither Wang or Yuan teach that an area of the first pixel aperture is larger than an area of the second pixel aperture, changing the aperture of one pixel relative to another such that an area of the first pixel aperture is larger than an area of the second pixel aperture, would have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Park. Specifically, Park teaches in Fig. 1-5 that different pixels can have different aperture sizes, including wherein the area of the first pixel aperture (e.g. pixel B, Fig. 4) is larger than an area of the second pixel aperture (e.g. pixel R, Fig. 4) in order to meet specific design requirements for the device. Accordingly, since the prior art teaches all of the claim element, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first pixel aperture, disclosed by Wang or Yuan, so that its area is larger than the area of the second pixel aperture, as disclosed by Park in order to meet specific design requirements for the device. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang or Yuan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0237527, hereinafter “Lee”). Regarding claim 10 (5), teaching of Wang or Yuan was discussed above in the rejection of claim 5. While neither Wang or Yuan teach that a thickness of the first organic layer is smaller than a thickness of the second organic layer, changing thickness of the organic layers so that a thinness of the first layer is smaller than a thickness of the second organic layer would have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Lee. Specifically, Lee teaches that the organic layers for different pixels may have different thicknesses from one another depending on the type of light to be emitted from the organic layer (¶¶[0076] and [0091]-[0092]). Accordingly, since the prior art teaches all of the claim element, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first organic layer disclosed by Wang or Yuan, to a thickness that is smaller than a thickness of the second organic layer, as doing so would amount to nothing more than selecting organic layer thickness in order to emit desired light. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6-7 and 8 is/are 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display device, particularly characterized by a first organic layer that includes a first layer including a hole-injection layer and a second layer covering the first layer, wherein the first layer is not in contact with the first side surface of a partition and the second layer is in contact with the first side surface of the partition, in combination with all other elements of the display device recited in the claim(s). Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display device, particularly characterized by an area where a first organic layer is in contact with a first side surface of a partition (e.g. A2a, Fig. 5) having a height that is different from a height of an area where a second organic layer is in contact with the second side surface of the partition (e.g. A1a, Fig. 5) in combination with all other elements of the display device recited in the claim(s). Claim(s) 7, which directly depends from claim(s) 6, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 6, is/are allowed for the similar reasons. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a display device, particularly characterized by a width in a height direction of a partition, of an area where a first upper electrode is in contact with the first side surface of the partition (e.g. A1b, Fig. 5) being smaller than a width in the height direction, of an area where a second upper electrode is in contact with the second side surface of the partition (e.g. A2b, Fig. 5 and ¶[0071]), in combination with all other elements of the display device recited in the claim(s). Relevant Prior Art The following prior art is relevant to the invention but not relied upon in any of the rejections: Lee et al. (US 2024/0049508) teaches in Fig. 3A and related text a display device a first lower electrode (310, Fig. 3A), a rib (115, Fig. 3A) including a first pixel aperture overlapping with the first lower electrode (Fig. 3A), a partition (400, Fig. 3A) arranged on the rib (Fig. 3A), a first upper electrode (330R1, Fig. 3A) opposed to the first lower electrode (Fig. 3A), and a first organic layer (320R1, Fig. 3A) which is located between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (Fig. 3A), which is in contact with the first lower electrode through the first pixel aperture, and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode, wherein the partition (400, Fig. 3A) includes a lower portion (420, Fig. 3A) having a first side surface and an upper portion (410, Fig. 3A) protruding from the first side surface (Fig. 3A), and the first organic layer is in contact with the first side surface (Fig. 3A). Shin et al. (US 2024/0081101) teaches in Fig. 7 and related text a display device comprising: a first lower electrode (210, Fig. 7 and ¶[0157]); a rib (400, Fig. 7 and ¶[0160]) including a first pixel aperture (Fig. 7) overlapping with the first lower electrode (Fig. 7); a partition (600, Fig. 7 and ¶[0162]) arranged on the rib (400, Fig. 7); a first upper electrode (230, Fig. 7 and ¶[0164]) opposed to the first lower electrode (210, Fig. 7); and a first organic layer (220, Fig. 7 and ¶[0168]) which is located between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (Fig. 7), which is in contact with the first lower electrode through the first pixel aperture, and which emits light in accordance with a potential difference between the first lower electrode and the first upper electrode (¶¶[0168]-[0171]), wherein the partition (600, Fig. 7) includes a lower portion (610, Fig. 7 and ¶[0162]) having a first side surface and an upper portion (620, Fig. 7 and ¶[0165]) protruding from the first side surface (Fig. 7 and ¶[0165]), and the first organic layer (230, Fig. 7) is in contact with the first side surface (Fig. 7). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM. 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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. /A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581921
MULTIPLE PATTERNING WITH SELECTIVE MANDREL FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568806
CONFORMAL DIELECTRIC CAP FOR SUBTRACTIVE VIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12550437
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538544
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12520678
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
66%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-0.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 228 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