Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/367,184

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 12, 2023
Priority
Nov 25, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0160206
Examiner
SMITH, BRADLEY
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
709 granted / 889 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
920
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
69.3%
+29.3% vs TC avg
§102
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 889 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 A2 figure 3 (claims 1-7, 9, 26-30, and 32) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036). Regarding claim 1, Forman et al. disclose a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer (110), an active layer (112) and a second semiconductor layer (114, 118) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (132) [0119](fig.1B) disposed on an outer surface (sidewalls, 134)(fig.1A) of the nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes a protrusion (portion of 110 outside of the sidewalls 134) (fig.1A) that protrudes (out to the side of the of) in a direction away from the active layer. Regarding claim 2, Forman et al. disclose the protrusion is made of a same material as the first semiconductor layer and is integrated with the first semiconductor layer (fig. 1A). Regarding claim 4, Forman et al. disclose the passivation pattern(132) exposes an outer side surface of the protrusion of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (fig. 1A). Claim(s) 1- 4 , 6, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sakong (US 2020/0403119). Regarding claim 1, Sakong disclose a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer (122), an active layer (125) and a second semiconductor layer (127) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (145) [0045](fig.1) disposed on an outer surface (sidewalls)(fig.1) of the nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes a protrusion (P) (fig.1) that protrudes in a direction away from the active layer (fig 1). Regarding claim 2, Sakong disclose the protrusion is made of a same material as the first semiconductor layer and is integrated with the first semiconductor layer (fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Sakong disclose the first semiconductor layer includes: a lower portion (P) having a first width (A2) (fig. 1); and an upper portion (122 above region P) disposed on the lower portion and having a second width (A1+A2)larger than the first width, wherein the lower portion is the protrusion that is integrated with the first semiconductor layer [0030, 0032]. Regarding claim 4, Sakong disclose the passivation pattern(145) exposes an outer side surface of the protrusion of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, Sakong disclose the nitride semiconductor structure has a T-shape (heavy top “T” 122 and P) in a cross-sectional view of the light-emitting device (fig.1). Regarding claim 26, Sakong disclose a first semiconductor layer (122), an active layer (125) and a second semiconductor layer (127) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (145) disposed on outer surfaces of the first semiconductor layer, the active layer and the second semiconductor layer, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes: a first portion (P, A2)(fig. 1) having a first width; and a second portion (122, A1+A2) disposed closer to the active layer than the first portion and having a second width larger than the first width (fig 1). Regarding claim 27, Sakong disclose the first portion is formed of a same material as the second portion and is integrated with the second portion (fig. 1). Regarding claim 28, Sakong disclose the passivation pattern (145) exposes an outer side surface of the first portion (i.e. does not cover the side of (P)) of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surfaces of the first semiconductor layer, the active layer and the second semiconductor layer (fig.1) 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Chang (US 2024/0347672). Forman et al. disclose the invention above. Forman et al. fails to disclose a light-scattering pattern disposed on an outer side surface of the protrusion. Chang disclose a light-scattering pattern (roughened) disposed on an outer side surface (fig. 4). The combination of Forman et al. and Chang would form the light-scattering pattern (roughened) on the outer surface of the protrusion (Forman et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Forman et al. and Chang because the roughened surface would increase the light extraction efficiency of the LED [Chang, 0032]. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556). Forman et al. disclose the invention above. Forman et al. disclose the active layer (112) of the nitride semiconductor structure is disposed on one side of a top surface of the first semiconductor (110) layer wherein the second semiconductor layer(114, 116) is disposed on the active layer (fig. 1A). Forman et al. fails to disclose another side of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer is exposed. Kwak et al. disclose another side (R2) of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer (12) is exposed (fig 2). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (exposing a top side of the first semiconductor), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contact on the top side of the first semiconductor layer). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556). Forman et al. disclose the invention above. Forman et al. fails to disclose the passivation pattern includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer and a second open area exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area. Kwak et al. disclose the passivation pattern (34)[0006] includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer(12) (R2)(fig. 2) and a second open area (where 38 contacts 36) exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer (32), wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming contact through passivation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contacts semiconductor layers). Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Chang (US 2024/0347672). Sakong disclose the invention above. Sakong fails to disclose a light-scattering pattern disposed on an outer side surface of the protrusion. Chang disclose a light-scattering pattern (roughened) disposed on an outer side surface (fig. 4). The combination of Forman et al. and Chang would form the light-scattering pattern (roughened) on the outer surface of the protrusion (Sakong). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Sakong and Chang because the roughened surface would increase the light extraction efficiency of the LED [Chang, 0032]. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556). Sakong disclose the invention above. Sakong disclose the active layer (125) of the nitride semiconductor structure is disposed on one side of a top surface of the first semiconductor (122) layer wherein the second semiconductor layer(127) is disposed on the active layer (fig. 1). Sakong fails to disclose another side of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer is exposed. Kwak et al. disclose another side (R2) of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer (12) is exposed (fig 2). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (exposing a top side of the first semiconductor), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contact on the top side of the first semiconductor layer). Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556). Sakong disclose the invention above. Sakong fails to disclose the passivation pattern includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer and a second open area exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area. Kwak et al. disclose the passivation pattern (34)[0006] includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer(12) (R2)(fig. 2) and a second open area (where 38 contacts 36) exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer (32), wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming contact through passivation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contacts semiconductor layers). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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. /BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2023
Application Filed
May 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Jun 29, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677508
Light-Emitting Element and Method for Manufacturing the Same
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677648
TREATMENT OF TUNGSTEN SURFACE FOR TUNGSTEN GAP-FILL
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677450
SIC MOSFETS WITH SATURATION CURRENT PINCHING STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12666765
LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12657503
EXECUTION OF QUBIT GATES
5y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (-3.2%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 889 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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