Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/382,316

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
HINES, ANNE M
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
766 granted / 899 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
917
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 899 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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 1-20 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. Specifically, in claim 1, the phrase “a decrease in a front luminance spectrum by the control layer is greater than a decrease in a side luminance spectrum by the control layer” is unclear because it is unclear what is required by the words ‘front’ and ‘side’; the Examiner notes that what is considered the front of the pixel and what is considered the side of a pixel is not defined in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1. Specifically, in claim 6, the word “resonated” is unclear because ‘resonate’ is defined as “to produce a loud, clear, deep, and continuous sound” (Merriam Webster Dictionary) and describes behavior of sound waves rather than light waves; it appears that the word may be intended to be “reflected”; the claim will be treated on its merits assuming this correction. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 7-9 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 6. Specifically, in claim 11, the phrase “wherein a transmittance of the control layer at a first wavelength band, within a wavelength band of a first color, is lower than a transmittance at a remaining visible light region such that a decrease in a front luminance spectrum by the control layer is greater than a decrease in a side luminance spectrum by the control layer” is unclear because it is unclear what is required by the words ‘front’ and ‘side’; the Examiner notes that what is considered the front of the pixel and what is considered the side of a pixel is not defined in the claims. Furthermore, the phrase ‘a transmittance of the control layer at a first wavelength band, within a wavelength band of a first color’ is unclear because the claimed ‘wavelength band of a first color’ appears to be claimed as a larger portion of the visible spectrum than the claimed ‘first wavelength band’, but it is unclear what portion of the wavelength band of the first color is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-19 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 11. Specifically, in claim 16, the word “resonated” is unclear because ‘resonate’ is defined as “to produce a loud, clear, deep, and continuous sound” (Merriam Webster Dictionary) and describes behavior of sound waves rather than light waves; it appears that the word may be intended to be “reflected”; the claim will be treated on its merits assuming this correction. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 17-19 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 16. Specifically, in claim 20, the phrase “a transmittance spectrum of the control layer has a peak closer to a peak of a luminance spectrum of a green color displayed by the first pixel at a side than a peak of a luminance spectrum of the green color displayed by the first pixel at a front” is unclear because it is unclear what is required by the words ‘front’ and ‘side’ and ‘closer’; the Examiner notes that what is considered the front of the pixel and what is considered the side of a pixel is not defined in the claims; it is further unclear whether the peak being closer to a peak of a luminance spectrum requires the intensity of the peak or the wavelength of the peak to be closer. Appropriate correction is required. 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. (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. Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 2023/0120937). Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a display device (Figs. 1-2) comprising a plurality of pixels including a first pixel representing green (Paragraph [0072]), wherein each of the pixels comprises a light emitting element including an anode (161; Paragraph [0037]), a light emitting layer (162; Paragraph [0037]), and a cathode (163; Paragraph [0037]), the display device further comprises a control layer disposed in a direction in which the light emitting element emits light and overlapping the first pixel (190; Paragraph [0088]), and a transmittance of the control layer at a first wavelength band, within a green wavelength band, is lower than a transmittance at a remaining visible light region such that a decrease in a front luminance spectrum by the control layer is greater than a decrease in a side luminance spectrum by the control layer (Fig. 3A, Example 1; Paragraph [0113-0114]—Note: “The amount of light emitted in the front is reduced by the color filter 190 while the amount of light emitted laterally is maintained, among the light emitted from the organic layer 162. As such, a difference between the luminance at the front and the luminance at the lateral side is also reduced”). Regarding claim 5, Hong further discloses wherein the transmittance of the control layer at the first wavelength band is greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph [0115]). Regarding claim 6, Hong further discloses wherein the light emitted from the light emitting element is reflected and emitted to an outside through the control layer (Paragraph [0100]). Regarding claim 10, Hong further discloses wherein the pixels further include a second pixel representing a different color from the first pixel, wherein the control layer includes a portion overlapping the second pixel (190; Paragraph [0088-0089]). Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses a display device (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a substrate on which a plurality of pixels is defined (110; Paragraph [0035]); a plurality of transistors positioned on the substrate (120; Paragraph [0034]); a plurality of light emitting elements positioned on the transistors; and a control layer disposed on the light emitting elements (160; Paragraph [0034]), wherein a transmittance of the control layer at a first wavelength band, within a wavelength band of a first color, is lower than a transmittance at a remaining visible light region such that a decrease in a front luminance spectrum by the control layer is greater than a decrease in a side luminance spectrum by the control layer (Fig. 3A, Example 1; Paragraph [0113-0114]—Note: “The amount of light emitted in the front is reduced by the color filter 190 while the amount of light emitted laterally is maintained, among the light emitted from the organic layer 162. As such, a difference between the luminance at the front and the luminance at the lateral side is also reduced”). Regarding claim 15, Hong further discloses wherein the transmittance of the control layer at the first wavelength band is greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph [0115]). Regarding claim 16, Hong further discloses wherein the light emitted from the light emitting element is reflected and emitted to an outside through the control layer (Paragraph [0100]). Regarding claim 19, Hong further discloses wherein the pixels further include a second pixel representing a different color from the first pixel, wherein the control layer includes a portion overlapping the second pixel (190; Paragraph [0088-0089]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE M HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-2285. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00-4:30. 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 on 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. /Anne M Hines/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2879
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604602
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596393
PARALLEL OPTICAL COMPUTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581839
DISPLAY PANEL, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575462
DISPLAY DEVICE AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563943
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
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
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 899 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