Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/385,557

DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Priority
Oct 31, 2022 — CN 202211351448.9
Examiner
SANTIAGO, MARICELI
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Wuhan Tianma Micro-Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
831 granted / 1029 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1061
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
70.8%
+30.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 § 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, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paek et al. (US 2019/0319212 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Paek discloses a display device, comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises a light-transmissive region (MH), a display region (DA) at least partially surrounding the light-transmissive region (MH), and a non-light-emitting region (BA) located between the light-transmissive region and the display region, wherein in a radial direction of the light-transmissive region, a difference in a size of the non-light-emitting region located around the light-transmissive region is [Symbol font/0x44]D, wherein 0 µm ≤ |[Symbol font/0x44]D| ≤ 10 µm (Paek discloses the non-light-emitting region is concentrically aligned around light transmissive region, the [Symbol font/0x44]D is zero, Fig. 4). Regarding claim 14, Paek discloses a display panel wherein the non-light-emitting region comprises black pixels, and brightness of the black pixels is 0 nit (compensation pixels PX-S display black color, ¶[0198], Fig. 8). Regarding claim 16, Paek discloses a display panel wherein in the radial direction of the light-transmissive region, an arrangement number of the black pixels (PX-S) is less than or equal to 5 (Fig. 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2-13, 15 and 17-19 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim(s) 2, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 2, and specifically comprising the limitation of a difference between shortest distances from light-emitting centers of the first pixels located around the light-transmissive region and of a same color to the light-transmissive region is M, wherein, 0 µm ≤ |M| ≤ 10 µm. Regarding claim(s) 3-13, claims(s) 3-13 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 2 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 2. Regarding claim(s) 15, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 15, and specifically comprising the limitation of a distance between a light-emitting center of the first light-emitting pixel and the light-transmissive region is a first distance, and a distance between a light-emitting center of the second light-emitting pixel and the light-transmissive region is a second distance, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance, and a number of black pixels located between the first light-emitting pixel and the light-transmissive region is greater than a number of black pixels located between the second light-emitting pixel and the light-transmissive region. Regarding claim(s) 17-19, claims(s) 17-19 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 15 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 15. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (US 2022/0344420 A1) discloses a display substrate including a substrate; and a pixel defining layer on the substrate, a display area, a non-display area and a light-transmitting area, the display area and the non-display area at least partially surround the light-transmitting area, the pixel defining layer extends from the display area to the non-display area, the pixel defining layer is provided with a first opening, the first opening comprises a plurality of first sub-openings and a plurality of second sub-openings, the plurality of first sub-openings are in the display area, the plurality of second sub-openings are in the non-display area, and the plurality of second sub-openings are closer to the light-transmitting area than the plurality of first sub-openings. Lim et al. (EP 3846217 A1) discloses a display device including a substrate having a hole (AH), a non-display area (NDA) surrounding the hole, and a display area surrounding the non-display area (DA); a display unit disposed on the substrate and having pixels disposed in the display area; and sensing electrodes (TE) disposed in the display area and a first alignment mark (M1) disposed in the non-display area on the display unit. The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. 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 R. 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. /Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12675011
ANTI-PEEPING FILM AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677575
DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677546
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677574
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677541
DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 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