Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/388,500

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 09, 2023
Examiner
BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1138 granted / 1395 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1420
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1395 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/388,500 CTNF 85079 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/9/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al., CN 110727368 in view of Li, CN 111146354 . Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a display device (at least in Figures 2 and 8), comprising: a substrate (111) on which a display area and a non-display area are disposed (see Figure 2); a light-emitting element (120, Figure 3) disposed in a sub-pixel of the display area; an encapsulation layer covering the light-emitting element (140); a black matrix disposed on the encapsulation layer (194, Figure 8); a color filter (192) overlapping the light-emitting element and covering an edge of the black matrix (192); and a layer (196) covering at least a portion of an upper surface of the black matrix and at least a portion of an upper surface of the color filter, Zheng is silent as to the layer being a low refractive index layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Li teaches a low refractive index layer above the black matrix and color filter (420 and 421, see spec regarding description of Figure 4, refractive index of 1.2). Li does not specifically teach that the low refractive index layer has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of each of the black matrix and the color filter, but in view of the fact that the layer is called the “low refractive index layer” it is the position of the examiner that the name is in reference to the index of refraction of the layer in comparison to the other layers below it, i.e., the color filter and black matrix. It was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a low refractive index layer, or multiples of it, would improve outcoupling of light from a display by providing a stepwise graded refractive index along the transmission direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a low refractive index layer, or multiple low refractive index layers in order to improve the outcoupling of light from the display, thereby improving picture quality. Regarding claim 2, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Zheng further teaches the display device further comprises a color planarization layer (Figure 8, 196). Further, it was well known for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to ensure the low refractive index layer were lower refractive index than the color planarization layer to reduce glare and improve visibility by having a higher refractive index layer at the top of the display stack. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to ensure the planarization layer had a higher refractive index than the low refractive index layer. Regarding claim 3, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Li further teaches the refractive index of the low refractive index layer is in a range of 1.20 to 1.45 (refractive index 1.2-1.3, spec regarding Figure 4). It was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a low refractive index layer, or multiples of it, would improve outcoupling of light from a display by providing a stepwise graded refractive index along the transmission direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a low refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.2-1.3, or multiple low refractive index layers in order to improve the outcoupling of light from the display, thereby improving picture quality. Regarding claim 5, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the low refractive index layer continuously extends so as to cover an entirety of an upper surface of the black matrix and an entirety of an upper surface of the color filter (Figure 4, layer 420 continuously extends). It was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a low refractive index layer, or multiples of it, would improve outcoupling of light from a display by providing a stepwise graded refractive index along the transmission direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a low refractive index layer, or multiple low refractive index layers in order to improve the outcoupling of light from the display, thereby improving picture quality. Regarding claim 6, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the black matrix extends into the non-display area so as to cover lines disposed in the non-display area, wherein the low refractive index layer together with the black matrix extends into the non-display area (Figure 4, non-display area to the left, black matrix 418 and low refractive index layer 420 and 421 cover the lines connecting to TFT 403). Further, it would have been well known for those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that extending the black matrix over the non-display area would prevent display and emission abnormalities due to lines in the non-display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the black matrixes to the non-display areas to ensure display quality and emission uniformity. Regarding claim 7, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Zheng further teaches the display device further comprises a touch electrode (152e) disposed on the encapsulation layer, wherein the black matrix is disposed at a position corresponding to or vertically overlapping with the touch electrode (see Figure 8, and spec regarding Figure 8 where touch electrode may also be between color filter 192 and packaging unit 140). Regarding claim 8, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 7 and Zheng further teaches the width of the touch electrode is smaller than the width of the black matrix (Figure 8, touch electrode 152e and black matrix 194). Regarding claim 9, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Li further teaches the low refractive index layer is made of crystalline or amorphous fluoropolymer, fluorosilicone polymer, or fluorine-modified multifunctional acrylate; or the low refractive index layer includes a matrix resin and at least one of hollow silica, hollow alumina and magnesium fluoride nanoparticles dispersed in the matrix resin (fluoropolymer, see Spec regarding Figure 4). Further, it is the position of the examine that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize one of said materials due to their well-known physical properties, transparency, hardness, and low refractive indexes. Regarding claim 10, Zheng teaches a display device (at least in Figures 2 and 8), comprising: a substrate (111) on which a display area and a non-display area are disposed (see Figure 2); a plurality of light-emitting elements (140) respectively disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels of the display area; an encapsulation layer (140) disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements; a plurality of color filters (192) respectively overlapping the plurality of light-emitting elements and disposed on the encapsulation layer (see Figure 8); a color planarization layer (196) disposed on the plurality of color filters. Zheng is silent as to a low refractive index layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Li teaches a first low refractive index layer (421) disposed between each of the plurality of color filters (419) and a flat layer (431). Further, Li teaches a low refractive index layer above the black matrix and color filter (421, see spec regarding description of Figure 4, refractive index of 1.2). Li does not specifically teach that the low refractive index layer has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of each of the black matrix and the color filter, but in view of the fact that the layer is called the “low refractive index layer” it is the position of the examiner that the name is in reference to the index of refraction of the layer in comparison to the other layers below it, i.e., the color filter and black matrix. It was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a low refractive index layer, or multiples of it, would improve outcoupling of light from a display by providing a stepwise graded refractive index along the transmission direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a low refractive index layer, or multiple low refractive index layers in order to improve the outcoupling of light from the display, thereby improving picture quality. Regarding claim 11, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 10 and Zheng further teaches a black matrix disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of color filters (Figure 8, black matrix 194). Further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple low refractive index layers in order to achieve even greater stepwise decrease in the index of refraction along the transmission direction, thereby improving display quality. Regarding claim 12, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple low refractive index layers in order to achieve even greater stepwise decrease in the index of refraction along the transmission direction, thereby improving display quality. Regarding claim 13, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a similar range of refractive indexes for each of the low refractive index layers, including 1.2-1.3 as taught by Li in order to achieve even greater stepwise decrease in the index of refraction along the transmission direction, thereby improving display quality. Regarding claim 14, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple low refractive index layers in order to achieve even greater stepwise decrease in the index of refraction along the transmission direction, thereby improving display quality. Regarding claim 15, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and Li further teaches the black matrix extends into the non-display area so as to cover lines disposed in the non-display area, and the second low refractive index layer together with the black matrix extends into the non-display area (Figure 4, non-display area to the left, black matrix 418 and low refractive index layer 420 and 421 cover the lines connecting to TFT 403). Further, it would have been well known for those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that extending the black matrix over the non-display area would prevent display and emission abnormalities due to lines in the non-display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the black matrixes to the non-display areas to ensure display quality and emission uniformity. Regarding claim 16, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and Li further teaches each of the first and second low refractive index layers is made of crystalline or amorphous fluoropolymer, fluorosilicone polymer, or fluorine-modified multifunctional acrylate; or each of the first and second low refractive index layers includes a matrix resin and at least one of hollow silica, hollow alumina and magnesium fluoride nanoparticles dispersed in the matrix resin (fluoropolymer, see Spec regarding Figure 4). Further, it is the position of the examine that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize one of said materials due to their well-known physical properties, transparency, hardness, and low refractive indexes. Further it is the position of the examiner that lacking criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple low refractive index layers in order to achieve even greater stepwise decrease in the index of refraction along the transmission direction, thereby improving display quality. Regarding claim 17, Zheng and Li teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11 and Zheng further teaches the display device further comprises a bank disposed on the substrate and distinguish the plurality of sub-pixels from each other (Figure 3, bank 128, and the black matrix overlaps the bank with a smaller width than that of the bank (see Figures 3 and 8, with drive line 152 and black matrix 194 having greater width) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 4 is 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest the low refractive index layer on the color filter and the second low refractive index layer on the black matrix are spaced apart from each other . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kimura et al., WO 2014203418 teaches a display device comprising low refractive index layers and color filter layers overlapping the edge of black matrix patterns . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 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 Greece can be reached at (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. MARY ELLEN BOWMAN Examiner Art Unit 2875 /MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 8 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 9 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/388,500 Page 10 Art Unit: 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 09, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592168
SPLICING SCREEN AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588399
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581770
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571530
SOLID-STATE LIGHTING FIXTURES WITH SOCKET CONNECTIONS FOR ACCESSORIES AND ACCESSORIES FOR USE THEREWITH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565987
CONDUCTIVE MOUNTING STRUCTURES FOR LIGHTING LAMPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1395 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