Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/356,531

DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
706 granted / 857 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
887
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 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 . 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)(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. Claims 1, 4, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0158043). Regarding independent claim 1, Lee teaches a display apparatus (Fig. 10, Element 1000; ¶ [0044]) comprising a light-emitting panel comprising a first substrate (Fig. 10, Element 110; ¶ [0051]) and a plurality of light-emitting devices (Fig. 10, Element 180; ¶ [0051]) disposed on the first substrate; and a color panel comprising a second substrate (Fig. 10, Element 210; ¶ [0086]), a bank (Fig. 10, Element 250; ¶ [0086]) disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate in a direction to the first substrate and comprising a plurality of first openings (Fig. 10; spaces between adjacent banks 10) each corresponding to emission areas (Fig. 10, Element PX) of the plurality of light-emitting devices, a functional layer (Fig. 10, Element 270; ¶ [0086]) arranged in the plurality of first openings, a first protrusion pattern (Fig. 10, Element 250b; ¶ [0150]) disposed on the bank, and a second protrusion pattern (Fig. 10; adjacent element 250b) disposed on the bank; wherein the first protrusion pattern is arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings, and the second protrusion pattern is spaced apart from the first protrusion pattern (Fig. 10). Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a width of the first protrusion pattern being less than a width of the bank arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings in a direction that adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings are arranged (Fig. 10; ¶ [0152]). Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the second protrusion pattern and the bank comprising a same material (¶ [0151]). Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the first protrusion pattern and the bank comprising a same material (¶ [0151]). Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses each of the first protrusion pattern and the second protrusion pattern integrally formed with the bank (¶ [0159]). Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a surface of the first protrusion pattern having a curved shape in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 10). Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the first protrusion pattern comprising a plurality of first protrusion patterns arranged between adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings (Fig. 10). Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the color panel comprising a capping layer (Fig. 10, Element 290; ¶ [0158]) disposed on the functional layer, the first protrusion pattern, and the second protrusion pattern. Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the color panel comprising a color filter layer (Fig. 10, Element 230; ¶ [0158]) arranged between the functional layer and the second substrate and comprising a first color filter (230a), a second color filter (230b), and a third color filter (230c). Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the functional layer comprising a first color conversion layer (270a), a second color conversion layer (270b), and a transmission layer (270c), the first color conversion layer comprises first quantum dots (Fig. 10, Element 271a; ¶ [0118]), and the second color conversion layer comprises second quantum dots (Fig. 10, Element 271b; ¶ [0118]). Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the plurality of light-emitting devices being organic light-emitting diodes emitting blue light (¶s [0069], [0072]). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 2-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0158043). Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a thickness of the first protrusion pattern less than a thickness of the second protrusion pattern in a thickness direction of the second substrate. However, Lee discloses the bank may have various sizes and shapes (¶ [0139]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display apparatus of Lee with a thickness of the first protrusion pattern being less than a thickness of the second protrusion pattern in a thickness direction of the second substrate, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a width of the first protrusion pattern is less than a width of the second protrusion pattern in a direction that adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings are arranged. However, Lee discloses the bank may have various sizes and shapes (¶ [0139]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display apparatus of Lee with a width of the first protrusion pattern being less than a width of the second protrusion pattern in a direction that adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings are arranged, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding independent claim 16, Lee teaches a display apparatus (Fig. 10, Element 1000; ¶ [0044]) comprising a first substrate (Fig. 10, Element 110; ¶ [0051]) and a second substrate (Fig. 10, Element 210; ¶ [0086]) facing the first substrate; a light-emitting device (Fig. 10, Element 180; ¶ [0051]) disposed on the first substrate and comprising an emission area (Fig. 10, Element PX); a pixel-defining layer disposed on the first substrate and defining the emission area (¶ [0072]); an encapsulation layer (Fig. 10, Element 190; ¶ [0051]) covering the light-emitting device; a bank (Fig. 10, Element 250a; ¶ [0151]) disposed above the encapsulation layer and having a plurality of openings corresponding to the emission area; a first protrusion pattern (Fig. 10, Element 250b; ¶ [0150]) arranged between the bank and the encapsulation layer; a second protrusion pattern (Fig. 10; adjacent element 250b) arranged between the bank and the encapsulation layer; a functional layer (Fig. 10, Element 270; ¶ [0086]) arranged in the plurality of openings; and a color filter layer (Fig. 10, Element 230; ¶ [0158]) arranged between the functional layer and the second substrate, and between the bank and the second substrate, wherein the second protrusion pattern and the bank comprise a same material (¶ [0159]). Lee teaches the limitations of independent claim 16 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the second protrusion pattern having a thickness greater than a thickness of the first protrusion pattern in a thickness direction of the second substrate. However, Lee discloses the bank may have various sizes and shapes (¶ [0139]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display apparatus of Lee with the second protrusion pattern having a thickness greater than a thickness of the first protrusion pattern in a thickness direction of the second substrate, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches each of the first protrusion pattern and the second protrusion pattern overlapping the bank and the pixel-defining layer in a plan view (Fig. 10; ¶ [0072]). Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the bank and the second protrusion pattern integral with each other (¶ [0159]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 and 19-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 5 and 19, the closest prior art of record (Lee) neither shows or suggests a display apparatus comprising, in addition to other limitations of the claims, a bank comprising a plurality of second openings disposed adjacent to a plurality of first openings, and the plurality of second openings do not overlap the emission areas of the plurality of light-emitting devices in a plan view. Due to their respective dependencies upon claims 5 and 19, claims 6 and 20 are also allowable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shin (US 2021/0391395) teaches a display apparatus with banks including black pigment. Lim (US 2019/0172874) teaches an electroluminescent display device with partition wall between encapsulation films. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm. 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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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. /Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 21 February 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598863
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575299
DISPLAY MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557517
DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550584
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12550580
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
82%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 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