Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/391,722

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner
DINKE, BITEW A
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Magnolia White Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
541 granted / 748 resolved
+4.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
800
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
65.0%
+25.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 748 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 . 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, 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH et al. (U.S. 2017/0117480 A1, hereinafter refer to OH) in view of Moon et al. (U.S. 2021/0367178 A1, hereinafter refer to Moon). Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4: OH discloses a display device (see OH, Fig.3 as shown below and ¶ [0003]) comprising: PNG media_image1.png 348 549 media_image1.png Greyscale an anode (EL1) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0044]); an organic EL layer including a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), an electron blocking layer (not shown), a light emitting layer (EML), an electron transport layer (ETL) and an electron injection layer (EIL) (note: hole transport region HTR may have a monolayer structure formed by using a plurality of different materials including the hole injection layer HIL/hole transport layer HTL/electron blocking layer are sequentially laminated) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0048]); and a cathode (EL2) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above), wherein the electron transport layer (ETL) includes a high-concentration layer (ETL1) and a low-concentration layer (ETL2) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]), a concentration of Liq contained in the high-concentration layer is 70% or more and 90% or less (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]), a concentration of Liq contained in the low-concentration layer is 10% or more and 50% or less (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]), and a thickness of the high-concentration layer is 5% or more and 15% or less of a thickness of the electron transport layer (ETL) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]) (as claimed in claim 1); a thickness of the electron transport layer (ETL) is 22.6 nm (about 10nm to about 100nm) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]), and a thickness of the high-concentration layer (ETL1) is 2.6 nm (about 1nm to about 15nm) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]) (as claimed in claim 2); wherein the concentration of Liq contained in the high-concentration layer (ETL1) is 80% (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]) (as claimed in claim 3); wherein the concentration of Liq contained in the low-concentration layer (ETL2) is 20% (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]) (as claimed in claim 4). OH is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the high-concentration layer is adjacent to an interface with the electron injection layer (as claimed in claim 1). However, OH teaches the low-concentration layer (ETL2) is adjacent to an interface with the electron injection layer (EIL) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]), the high-concentration layer (ETL1) is adjacent to an interface with the low-concentration layer (ETL2) (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0084]- ¶ [0092]). Hence, claims to an electron transport layer which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the n-type dopant concentration level of electron transport layer were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the n-type dopant concentration level of electron transport layer would not have modified the operation of the device. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out shifting the position of the n-type dopant concentration level of electron transport layer and shifting the position of the n-type dopant concentration level of electron transport layer achieves to obtain a desirable degree of the electron transport property without an excess increase in the driving voltage. In addition, OH teaches an overlapping ranges of n-type dopant concentration for high-concentration layer and low-concentration layer of electron transport layer as shown above; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the n-type dopant concentration for high-concentration layer and low-concentration layer of electron transport layer through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain a desirable degree of the electron transport property without an excess increase in the driving voltage because the n-type dopant concentration for high-concentration layer and low-concentration layer of electron transport layer is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 OH is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein an organic EL layer including a hole blocking layer. Before effective filing date of the claimed invention the disclosed an organic EL layer were known to include a hole blocking layer in order to substantially minimized the electron/hole leakage phenomenon and increase the efficiency and lifespan characteristics of the device. For support see Moon, which teaches wherein an organic EL layer including a hole blocking layer (53) (see Moon, Fig.1 as shown below and ¶ [0047]- ¶ [0049]). PNG media_image2.png 343 488 media_image2.png Greyscale Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the tecahings of OH and Moon to enable the OH’s an organic EL layer to include a hole blocking layer as taught by Moon in order to substantially minimized the electron/hole leakage phenomenon and increase the efficiency and lifespan characteristics of the device. Regarding Claim 5: OH as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of OH and Moon further teaches wherein the light emitting layer emits blue light (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0055]). Regarding Claim 6: OH as modified teaches a display device as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of OH and Moon further teaches wherein when a difference in LUMO energy of the electron injection layer and the electron transport layer is defined as ΔE1_LUMO, the ΔE1_LUMO is 0.2 eV or less (see OH, Fig.3 as shown above and ¶ [0077]- ¶ [0083]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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. /BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604598
SOLID-STATE IMAGING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588484
BACKSIDE DIFFUSION BREAK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575303
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY PANEL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563797
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556275
Display Substrate, Display Apparatus, and Visible Light Communication System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
72%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 748 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