Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/371,214

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Examiner
FEATHERLY, HANA SANEI
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
470 granted / 645 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
675
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 645 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 9/21/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner. Claim Objection(s) Claim(s) 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 13, Examiner suggests modifying line 12, “the inorganic layer” to -- the inorganic layers -- in order to place the claim in better form. Appropriate correction is required. America Invents Act 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 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. 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 of this title, 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. 1. Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0314515 A1) in view of Lim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0079319 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Jang et al., teaches a display device (500, “a display device,” ¶ [0170]; see at least Fig. 15), comprising: a first substrate (110, ¶ [0050]) including a display area (area beyond 701) having a plurality of pixels, and a non-display area (area within 701) surrounding the display area, the first substrate (110); an inorganic layer (135, “the encapsulation layer 135 may include a first inorganic material layer surrounding the light emitting device layer 133, an organic material layer surrounding the first inorganic material layer, and a second inorganic material layer surrounding the organic material layer,” 0064) on the first substrate (110); a planarization layer (combination of 250 + 700) on the inorganic layer (135); a bonding layer (630, “cover coupling member” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “be an adhesive resin, a double-sided adhesive tape, or a double-sided adhesive foam pad, and may have elasticity for absorbing an impact,” ¶ [0181]) on the inorganic layer (135) and the planarization layer; and a second substrate (650) on the bonding layer (630), wherein the planarization layer includes: a first planarization layer (250) overlapping the first substrate (110) in a plan view; and a second planarization layer (730) surrounding a side surface of the first planarization layer (250). Jang et al., does not explicitly teach the first substrate being made of one of transparent conducting oxide and oxide semiconductor. In the same field of endeavor of display panels (1000, “display,” ¶ [0044]), Lim et al., teaches that a substrate is provided as either silicon dioxide (as also taught by Jang above) or titanium dioxide (¶ [0079]), thus exemplifying recognized equivalent materials of the substrates in the art. Lim et al., teaches the suitability of using a substrate being provided as silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide in order to ensure adequate transparency while maintaining functionality during operation. In light of this teaching, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the substrate of Jang et al., as titanium dioxide instead of as silicon dioxide, since the selection of any of these known equivalents would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Lim's teaching. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using titanium dioxide as the substrate material as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Regarding Claim 2, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second planarization layer (730) surrounds a side surface of the inorganic layer (135) and a side surface of the first substrate (110). Regarding Claim 3, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a flexible film (710) on the first substrate (110) at one side of the non-display area (area within 701), wherein the second planarization layer (730) is in the non-display area (area within 701) at a lateral portion that excludes one side at which the flexible film (710) is disposed. Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 4, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein an end of the second planarization layer (730) is further outside in a plan view relative to an end of the first substrate (110), and a portion of the second planarization layer (730) is on a same layer as the first substrate (110). Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 5, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first planarization layer (250) and the second planarization layer (730) are integrated. Regarding Claim 6, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a seal member (outermost surface of 730) surrounding a side surface of the second substrate (650), wherein an end of the second planarization layer (730) is covered by the seal member (outermost surface of 730). Regarding Claim 7, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the first substrate (110), a portion of the second planarization layer (730), and a portion of the seal member (outermost surface of 730) are on a same layer. Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 8, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, further comprising a polarizing plate (300, “polarization layer,” ¶ [0082]) or barrier film bonded to a bottom surface of the first substrate (110), a bottom surface of the second planarization layer (730), and a bottom surface of the seal member (outermost surface of 730), wherein the inorganic layer (135) is on a top surface of the first substrate (110). Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 9, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein an end of the second planarization layer (730) is further outside in a plan view relative to an end of the bonding layer (630). Regarding Claim 10, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein an end of the first substrate (110) and an end of the inorganic layer (135) are further inside in the plan view relative to an end of the bonding layer (630). Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 11, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein an end of the second planarization layer (730) is further inside in a plan view relative to an end of the bonding layer (630). Regarding Claim 12, Jang et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) in addition to a portion of the bonding layer (630) is on a same layer as the first substrate (110). Jang et al., does not explicitly teach the specific limitation of a width of the bonding layer on the same layer as the first substrate being 100 pm or less. However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the width of the bonding layer on the same layer as the first substrate being 100 pm or less, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the width of the bonding layer on the same layer as the first substrate being 100 pm or less in order to improve the functionality and stability of the bonding layer overall. Regarding Claim 13, Jang et al., teaches a display device, comprising: a first substrate (110) including a display area having a plurality of pixels, and a non-display area (area within 701) surrounding the display area, the first substrate (110); a plurality of inorganic layers (135, “the encapsulation layer 135 may include a first inorganic material layer surrounding the light emitting device layer 133, an organic material layer surrounding the first inorganic material layer, and a second inorganic material layer surrounding the organic material layer, ¶ [0064]) on the first substrate (110); a planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730) on the plurality of inorganic layers; a bonding layer (630) on the plurality of inorganic layers (of 135) and the planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730); a second substrate (650) on the bonding layer (630); and a seal member (outermost surface of 730) (outer-most edge/surface of 730) surrounding a side surface of the second substrate (650) and a side surface of the planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730), wherein the planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730) surrounds a side surface of the first substrate (110) and a side surface of the inorganic layer (135). Jang et al., does not explicitly teach the first substrate being made of one of transparent conducting oxide and oxide semiconductor. In the same field of endeavor of display panels (1000, “display,” ¶ [0044]), Lim et al., teaches that a substrate is provided as either silicon dioxide (as also taught by Jang above) or titanium dioxide (¶ [0079]), thus exemplifying recognized equivalent materials of the substrates in the art. Lim et al., teaches the suitability of using a substrate being provided as silicon dioxide or titanium dioxide in order to ensure adequate transparency while maintaining functionality during operation. In light of this teaching, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the substrate of Jang et al., as titanium dioxide instead of as silicon dioxide, since the selection of any of these known equivalents would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Lim's teaching. Regarding Claim 14, Jang et al., as modified by Lim et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein a bottom surface of the first substrate (110), a part of a bottom surface of the planarization layer, and a bottom surface of the seal member (outermost surface of 730) are positioned on a same plane. Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above. Regarding Claim 15, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein an end of the bonding layer (630) is on a top surface of the planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730). Regarding Claim 16, Jang et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the bonding layer (630) surrounds a side surface of the planarization layer (combination of 250 + 730). Other Prior Art Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 10,802,638 B1 teaches a bonding layer covering the edge of a second substrate. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0345880 teaches first and second passivation layers. Examiner's Note The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Hana Featherly whose telephone number is (571)-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 10 AM - 2 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Hana Featherly/ USPTO Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner Hana Featherly /JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595896
LUMINAIRE WITH A ROTATING PATTERN BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575274
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING UNDER DISPLAY CAMERA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570209
TRANSPARENT LUMINESCENT SHEET AND A LAMP APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566289
BACKLIGHT DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563921
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 645 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