Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/396,389

Display Panel and Display Device Including the Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 26, 2023
Examiner
KIM, TONG-HO
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
991 granted / 1040 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1082
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023, 9/16/2024, 1/3/2025 was filed. The submission 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 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. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2007165748A) in view of Lee (US 2022/0406975). Regarding claim 1, Wakabayashi discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), a display panel (10, [17], [18]) comprising: a plurality of active area pixels (OLED elements P, [20]) disposed in an active area (11, [20]) of the display panel (10, [18]), each of the active area pixels (OLED elements P, [20]) including one or more active area sub-pixels configured to emit light to display an image on the display panel (10, [18]) ([17]); and a plurality of bezel area pixels (positive protection diode DH/negative protection diode DL, [24]) disposed in a bezel area (14, [20]) of the display panel (10, [17], [18]), one or more of the bezel area pixels (positive protection diode DH/negative protection diode DL, [24]) each including one or more bezel area sub-pixels (positive protection diode DH/negative protection diode DL, [24]) configured not to emit light ([54]), wherein the bezel area sub-pixels (positive protection diode DH/negative protection diode DL, [24]) comprise: a first bezel area sub-pixel (positive protection diode DH, [24]) having a first electrode (262, [41]) and a second electrode (29H, [41]), the first electrode (262, [41]) electrically connected to a common node (data line 16, [24]) and the second electrode (29H, [41]) electrically connected to a first power supply line (LH, [24]); and a second bezel area sub-pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) having a third electrode (29L, [41]) and a fourth electrode (261, [41]), the third electrode (29L, [41]) electrically connected to the common node (data line 16, [24]) and the fourth electrode (261, [41]) electrically connected to a second power supply line (LL, [24]) different from the first power supply line (LH, [24]). Wakabayashi does not explicitly disclose a bezel area of the display panel surrounding at least a part of the active area. Lee teaches, in at least figures 1, 2, 6, and related text, the device comprising a bezel area of the display panel (NDA, [64]) surrounding at least a part of the active area (DA, [64]), for the purpose of providing a display device that may be capable of improving aesthetics, reducing an amount of resin used in a frame area, and reusing the resin by minimizing the frame area ([5]). Wakabayashi and Lee are analogous art because they both are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wakabayashi with the specified features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Wakabayashi to have the bezel area of the display panel surrounding at least a part of the active area, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing a display device that may be capable of improving aesthetics, reducing an amount of resin used in a frame area, and reusing the resin by minimizing the frame area ([5], Lee). Regarding claim 2, Wakabayashi in view of Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), electrostatic is discharged from the common node (data line 16, [24]) to the first power supply line (LH, [24]) via the first bezel area sub-pixel (positive protection diode DH, [24]) or to the second power supply line (LL, [24]) via the second bezel area sub-pixel (positive protection diode DL, [24]). Regarding claim 3, Wakabayashi in view of Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), the common node (data line 16, [24]) is electrically connected to a common voltage connected to electrodes (264, [41]) of the active area sub-pixels (OLED elements P, [20]) (figure 4). Regarding claim 4, Wakabayashi in view of Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), the common node (data line 16, [24]) is electrically connected to a data line driving data voltages to electrodes (264, [41]) of the active area sub-pixels (OLED elements P, [20]) (figure 4). Regarding claim 5, Wakabayashi in view of Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), each of the active area sub-pixels (OLED elements P, [20]) include an organic light-emitting diode ([20]) or a micro-LED. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2007165748A) in view of Lee (US 2022/0406975), and further in view of Jung (US 2020/0302841). Regarding claim 8, Wakabayashi in view of Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1 as described above. Wakabayashi in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose a driver disposed on a rear surface of the display panel in the active area, wherein the driver controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels. Jung teaches, in at least figure 2B and related text, the device comprising a driver (150, [74]) disposed on a rear surface of the display panel (100’, [71]) in the active area, wherein the driver (150, [74]) controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels (130-1/130-1/130-3, [57]), for the purpose of providing structure of an LED display panel in which driving circuits for driving micro LEDs can be easily repaired ([2]). Wakabayashi, Lee, and Jung are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wakabayashi in view of Lee with the specified features of Jung because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Wakabayashi in view of Lee to have the driver disposed on a rear surface of the display panel in the active area, wherein the driver controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels, as taught by Jung, for the purpose of providing structure of an LED display panel in which driving circuits for driving micro LEDs can be easily repaired ([2], Jung). Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2007165748A) in view of Jung (US 2020/0302841). Regarding claim 9, Wakabayashi discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), a display device comprising: a display panel (10, [17], [18]) including: at least one first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) disposed in a first area (11, [20]); and at least one second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) disposed in a second area (14, [20]); and, wherein the first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) includes at least one sub-pixel (OLED elements P, [20]), wherein each of the at least one sub-pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) thereof has a first electrode (264, [41]) at one side and a second electrode (29, [41]) at the other side thereto, wherein the second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) includes at least one sub-pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]), wherein each of the at least one sub-pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) thereof has a first electrode (262, [41]) at one side and a power supply electrode (29L, [41]) at the other side thereto, wherein the first electrode (262, [41]) of the sub-pixel of the second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) is connected to a ground (LL, [24]) (the limitation of “connected to a ground” has not patentable weight because it is interpreted as operational property) and the power supply electrode (29L, [41]) is connected to a power supply line (data line 16, [24]), wherein the first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) and the second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) operate at voltages of different potentials (voltage of data line 16 for P and electrostatic voltage for DL), respectively ([20], [24], figures). Wakabayashi in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose a driver disposed on a rear surface of the display panel in the active area, wherein the driver controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels. Jung teaches, in at least figure 2B and related text, the device comprising a driver (150, [74]) disposed on a rear surface of the display panel (100’, [71]) in the active area, wherein the driver (150, [74]) controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels (130-1/130-1/130-3, [57]), for the purpose of providing structure of an LED display panel in which driving circuits for driving micro LEDs can be easily repaired ([2]). Wakabayashi and Jung are analogous art because they both are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wakabayashi with the specified features of Jung because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Wakabayashi to have the driver disposed on a rear surface of the display panel in the active area, wherein the driver controls amount of light emitted from the active area sub-pixels, as taught by Jung, for the purpose of providing structure of an LED display panel in which driving circuits for driving micro LEDs can be easily repaired ([2], Jung). Regarding claim 10, Wakabayashi in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 9 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), the at least one sub-pixel of the first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) is configured to emit light of one color of red ([50]), green ([50]), blue ([50]), and white. Regarding claim 11, Wakabayashi in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 9 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), the voltages of the different potentials (voltage of data line 16 for P and electrostatic voltage for DL, [20], [24], figures) include a data voltage (voltage of data line 16 for P, [20], figures) applied to the first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]), and a voltage of an impact power generated due to static electricity (electrostatic voltage for DL, [4], [24], figures) applied to the second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]). Regarding claim 12, Wakabayashi in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 9 as described above. The claimed limitation of "the driver is configured to apply a data voltage set during a first control period to each of the at least one sub-pixel of the first pixel to cause each sub-pixel to emit light corresponding to a generated coordinate value for a pulse width set during a second control period" has not patentable weight because it is interpreted as operation property. Regarding claim 13, Wakabayashi in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 9 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), the first area (11, [20]) is a display area and the second area (14, [20]) is a bezel area. Regarding claim 14, Wakabayashi in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 9 as described above. Wakabayashi further discloses, in at least figures 1-5 and related text (translated text), a spare area (the limitation of “a spare area” is interpreted as an area) is disposed around each of the first pixel (OLED elements P, [20]) and the second pixel (negative protection diode DL, [24]) (figures). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 6 that recite "an anode disposed on a bank layer so as to cover an upper surface and one side wall of the bank layer, a diffuser window layer disposed on the anode and the bank layer, a conductive layer disposed on the anode, an active layer disposed on the conductive layer, a sidewall diffuser layer disposed on the diffuser window layer so as to surround the conductive layer and the active layer, and a cathode disposed on the sidewall diffuser layer and the active layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 6. Claim 7 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 7 that recite "an anode disposed on a bank layer so as to cover an upper surface and both side wall surfaces of the bank layer, a diffuser window layer disposed on the anode, a conductive layer disposed on the anode, an active layer disposed on the conductive layer, a sidewall diffuser layer disposed on the diffuser window layer so as to surround the conductive layer and the active layer, and a cathode disposed on the sidewall diffuser layer and the active layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 7. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONG-HO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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. /TONG-HO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598777
LOW TEMPERATURE, HIGH GERMANIUM, HIGH BORON SIGE:B PEPI WITH TITANIUM SILICIDE CONTACTS FOR ULTRA-LOW PMOS CONTACT RESISTIVITY AND THERMAL STABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598764
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598787
FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR WITH DUAL LAYER ISOLATION STRUCTURE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598831
PIXEL SHIELDING USING AIR GAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598802
High-Voltage Tolerant Device and Detection Circuit
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
95%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+0.4%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 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