Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/378,300

DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 10, 2023
Examiner
JANG, BO BIN
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
523 granted / 595 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
621
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 595 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR 10-2022-0134450 filed in Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on October 18, 2022 and receipt of a certified copy thereof. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on October 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to for the following informalities: In Fig. 1, the line III-III’ is unclear. In Fig. 1, the reference character “X” that is present in the left corner of the bottom portion does not point out any item, thus, should be deleted. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 4, 6, 17 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 2, “the display area” should read --a display area of the plurality of display areas-- or --each display area of the plurality of display areas--. Support can be found at least in the base claim 1. In claim 6, line 4, “the display area” should read --a display area of the plurality of display areas-- or --each display area of the plurality of display areas--. Support can be found at least in the base claim 1. In claim 17, line 2, “the display area” should read --a display area of the plurality of display areas-- or --each display area of the plurality of display areas--. Support can be found at least in the base claim 14. In claim 23, line 2, “the display area” should read --a display area of the plurality of display areas-- or --each display area of the plurality of display areas--. Support can be found at least in the base claim 22. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 27 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 27 recites the feature “an adhesion of the island area is greater than or equal to 3,000 g[Symbol font/0xD7]f/inch” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what the above feature specifically refers to, thus this renders the claim indefinite. For example, it has been well known in the art that adhesion strength is affected by surface factors (cleanliness, roughness, energy/wettability), material properties (adhesive cohesion, substrate strength, chemical compatibility), and application conditions (temperature, pressure, time, film thickness), and the like. The claim does not specifically recite how the adhesion (strength/force) of the island area is measured. For the examination purpose, the above feature is interpreted to as --the island area has an adhesion strength--. 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 22, 26-30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 2018/0095574. Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches a display apparatus (e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 6-9, [52]-[61], [82]-[99]; also see Figs. 2-5 and [62]-[81] for reference) comprising: a first member (e.g., 310, Fig. 8; 110, Fig. 1); a display panel (e.g., 140 and TAs including 323-327, Fig. 9, Figs. 6-8; Fig. 1) disposed on the first member and comprising a plurality of display areas (e.g., display areas including pixels of 140 and their corresponding TAs, Figs. 6-9; [57]) arranged to be apart from each other and a bridge area (e.g., 326, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) connecting together the plurality of display areas apart from each other; a support member (e.g., 130, Fig. 1) disposed on the first member to correspond to each of the plurality of display areas and a portion of the bridge area; and a first adhesive member (e.g., first adhesive member including 321, Fig. 8; 121, Fig. 3) arranged between the first member and the support member and comprising an island area (e.g., 321, Fig. 8; 121, Fig. 3) arranged to overlap at least a portion of the support member in a plan view and having a modulus of elasticity (e.g., [68]) different from a modulus of elasticity (e.g., [69]) of an area (e.g., 322, Fig. 8; 122, Fig. 3) excluding the island area of the first adhesive member. Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, wherein the support member is arranged inside the island area (e.g., Fig. 8, Fig. 1) Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, wherein an adhesion of the island area is greater than or equal to 3,000 g[Symbol font/0xD7]f/inch (e.g., [68]; see the 112 rejection above). Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, wherein an adhesion of the island area (e.g., adhesion of amorphous silicon, [68]) is greater than an adhesion of the area (adhesion of polysilicon, [69]) of the first adhesive member excluding the island area. Regarding claim 29, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, wherein the first adhesive member further comprises a core portion (e.g., core portion of 321, Fig. 8) arranged in the island area. Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, further comprising: a second member (e.g., 314, Fig. 8) disposed on the display panel. Regarding claim 33, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 30, further comprising: a second adhesive member (e.g., 312, Fig. 8) arranged between the second member and the display panel and disposed to correspond to each of the display areas and at least a portion of the bridge area. Regarding claim 34, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 22, wherein the first member comprises a heat-shrinkable film (e.g., [64]). 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. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2018/0095574. Regarding claim 31, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 30 as discussed above. Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first member and a thickness of the second member are different from each other. A thickness of a member is one of expected variables, so is not limited to one thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and control the thicknesses of the members of Kim to have the claimed thickness relationship through routine experimentation and optimization. MPEP 2144.05. Also, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness relationship is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. Regarding claim 32, Kim teaches the display apparatus of claim 30 as discussed above. Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the first member and the second member comprise a same material as each other. A material of a member is one of expected variables, so is not limited to one material. Kim also recognizes that materials of the first and second members 310(110), 314(114) do not particularly limited (e.g., [64], [58], [65]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and control the materials of the members of Kim to have the claimed material relationship through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness relationship is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are allowed at this time, pending updated search before the Examiner's next response, because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of the base claim 1 that recites “a display panel disposed on the first member and comprising a plurality of display areas arranged to be apart from each other and a bridge area connecting together the display areas apart from each other; a support member disposed on the first member to correspond each of the display areas and a portion of the bridge area; and a stopper unit disposed on the first member, wherein the stopper unit selectively contacts with the support member” in combination with other elements of the base claim 1. Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action. Claims 14-16 and 18-21 are allowed at this time, pending updated search before the Examiner's next response, because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of the base claim 14 that recites “a display panel disposed on the first member and comprising a plurality of display areas arranged to be apart from each other and a bridge area connecting together the display areas apart from each other; a support member disposed on the first member to correspond to each of the display areas and a portion of the bridge area; a second member disposed on the display panel; a second adhesive member arranged between the second member and the display panel and having a planar shape corresponding to a planar shape of each of the display areas and a planar shape of the bridge area; and a force applicator protruding from the second adhesive member to the bridge area and in contact with the bridge area” in combination with other elements of the base claim 14. Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action. Claims 23-25 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, and if amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bo Bin Jang whose telephone number is (571) 270-0271. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000. /BO B JANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 December 9, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604526
DISPLAY PANEL AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603038
SPARSE LED ARRAY SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598808
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598849
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593507
SUBSTRATE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND SPLICED PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
88%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 595 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