Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/358,462

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 25, 2023
Examiner
SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
651 granted / 914 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
987
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 914 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Fig. 6, claims 1-4, 6-12, 18-19 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-4, 6-12, 18-19 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 1 line 16 and line 20 recite “the insulating layers” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite it “the insulating layers” is referring to the plurality of insulating layers recited in line 8. Claim 18 line 19 and line 23 recite “the organic layers” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite it “the organic layers” is referring to the plurality of organic layers recited in line 8. Claim 2 recites “the insulating layers” lack antecedent basis. 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. Claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. 20190164995 (hereinafter Lee). PNG media_image1.png 556 836 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, fig. 3 of Lee discloses a display device comprising: a base substrate comprising a first area 1A, a second area 2A spaced apart from the first area in a first direction X, and a third area BA between the first area and the second area in the first direction and bendable to a set degree; a plurality of insulating layers on the base substrate; a pixel on the first area; and a signal line (210/240/220) overlapping the first area, the second area, and the third area, wherein the signal line comprises: a first line portion 210 in the first area; a second line portion 240 in the first area, the second area, and the third area and on a layer different from a layer of the first line portion; and a first connection portion 230 in the first area and on a layer different from layers of the first line portion 210 and the second line portion 240, PNG media_image2.png 575 708 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein a first portion (as labeled by examiner above) of the first connection portion 230 is connected to the first line portion 210 via at least one first contact hole CNT1 defined in a first insulating layer 131 of the insulating layers between the first portion of the first connection portion 230 and the first line portion 210, and wherein the second line portion is connected to a second portion (as labeled by examiner above) of the first connection portion via a single second contact hole CNT2 defined in a second insulating layer 141 of the insulating layers between the second line portion 240 and the second portion of the first connection portion, the second insulating layer being an organic layer. Regarding claim 2, fig. 3 of Lee discloses wherein the signal line further comprises: a third line portion 220 in the second area; and a second connection portion 230 (in 2A region) in the second area and on a layer different from layers of the second line portion 240 and the third line portion 220, wherein a first portion (as labeled by examiner above) of the second connection portion is connected to the third line portion via at least one third contact hole CNT1 defined in a third insulating layer 132 of the insulating layers between the first portion of the second connection portion and the third line portion 220, and wherein the second line portion 230 is connected to a second portion of the second connection portion 230 via a single fourth contact hole CNT2 defined in a fourth insulating layer 141 (on the left above 2A) of the insulating layers between the second line portion and the second portion of the second connection portion, the fourth insulating layer being an organic layer. Regarding claim 3, fig. 3 of Lee discloses wherein the second insulating layer and the fourth insulating layer are a same organic layer. Regarding claim 4, fig. 3 of Lee discloses wherein the at least one first contact hole comprises a plurality of first contact holes, wherein the first insulating layer comprises a plurality of inorganic layers. Regarding claim 8, fig. 3 of Lee discloses wherein the second line portion 240 comprises: a connected portion overlapping the second portion of the first connection portion; and a plurality of line portions extending in the first direction from the connected portion, arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction, and overlapping the third area. Regarding claim 9, fig. 1 of Lee discloses further comprising: a scan driving circuit 22 that is in the first area and provides a scan signal to the pixel, wherein the signal line is connected (physically) to the scan driving circuit. Regarding claim 10, figs. 1 and 3 of Lee discloses wherein the signal line comprises a first signal line 220 configured to receive a first bias voltage and a second signal line 210 configured to receive a second bias voltage lower than the first bias voltage (as there exist a voltage drop). Regarding claim 12, fig. 1 of Lee discloses wherein the signal line is electrically connected to the pixel. 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. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Regarding claim 6, Lee does not disclose wherein a contact area of the second contact hole is larger than a sum of contact areas of the plurality of first contact holes. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Lee comprising wherein a contact area of the second contact hole is larger than a sum of contact areas of the plurality of first contact holes in order to form a lower contact resistance for the second contact hole than the first contact holes. Regarding claim 11, Lee does not disclose wherein a voltage difference between the first bias voltage and the second bias voltage is equal to or greater than about 10 V. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Lee comprising wherein a voltage difference between the first bias voltage and the second bias voltage is equal to or greater than about 10 V in order to meet the applicant design. Claims 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wang et al. 20190094598. Regarding claims 7 and 18 (see rejection of claim 1 above), lee discloses a display device comprising: a base substrate comprising a first area, a second area spaced apart from the first area in a first direction X, and a third area between the first area and the second area; a plurality of inorganic layers (110/120/131/132) on the base substrate, and defining an opening extending in a second direction Z crossing the first direction and overlapping the third area; a plurality of organic layers 141/142/150 on the plurality of inorganic layers; a pixel on the base substrate and overlapping the first area; and a signal line overlapping the first area, the second area, and the third area, wherein the signal line comprises: a first line portion in the first area; a second line portion in the first area, the second area, and the third area and on a layer different from a layer of the first line portion; and a first connection portion in the first area and on a layer different from layers of the first line portion and the second line portion, wherein a first portion of the first connection portion is connected to the first line portion via a plurality of first contact holes CNT1s defined in at least one inorganic layer of the inorganic layers between the first portion of the first connection portion and the first line portion, wherein the second line portion is connected to a second portion of the first connection portion via a second contact hole CNT2 defined in at least one organic layer 141 of the organic layers between the second line portion and the second portion of the first connection portion. Lee does not disclose of wherein a diameter of the second contact hole is equal to or greater than about 10 micrometers. PNG media_image3.png 162 443 media_image3.png Greyscale However, Wang discloses a display device and fig. 6 and par [0050] of Wang disclose that film thicknesses are generally in a level of thousand Angstroms (for example, the film thickness is 4000 Å). Because the insulation layer is thin, the via hole is small (generally with a diameter less than 10 μm). Note this implies for thicker insulation, via hole would 10um or greater. As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Lee further comprising wherein a diameter of the second contact hole is equal to or greater than about 10 micrometers in order to form a contact hole in thicker insulating film to get a desired contact resistance such as taught by Wang. Regarding claim 19, fig. 3 of Lee discloses wherein a portion 142 of an organic layer on the at least one organic layer among the plurality of organic layers is inside the second contact hole CNT2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST. 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 on (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. /VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604622
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598804
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598779
Gate-All-Around Device with Protective Dielectric Layer and Method of Forming the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588424
NONVOLATILE MEMORY ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581835
DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
71%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 914 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