Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/397,137

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Priority
Dec 29, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0189585 +1 more
Examiner
CUNNINGHAM, KIERAN MURRAY
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
1 granted / 1 resolved
+32.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
28
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
94.7%
+54.7% vs TC avg
§102
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1 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 . Applicant’s election without traverse Species II in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-12, and 24-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 April 2026. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR 10-2022-0189585 filed on 12/29/2022 and KR 10-2023-0185448 filed on 12/19/2023 The foreign applications are not in English. The certified copies of the foreign priority applications KR 10-2022-0189585 and KR 10-2023-0185448 has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority DateTo be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP 2021108104 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign applications KR 10-2022-0189585 and KR 10-2023-0185448 and a statement that the translations are accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations. Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 3-8, 13-15, 18-23 and 26 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Park et al. (US Pub 20230111042) hereinafter referred to as Park, in view Jo et al. (US Pub. 20230209953) hereinafter referred to as Jo and Kim et al. (US Pub. 20230292550) hereinafter referred toa as Kim. Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (Park, 100, Fig. 1, para. 41) including a display area (Park, DA, Fig. 3, para. 46) and a non-pad area (Park, NP, Fig. 3, para. 67) located outside the display area; a plurality of transmissive areas (Park, TR2, Fig. 11, para. 190) disposed in the non-pad area and spaced apart from each other in a first direction and a second direction different from the first direction; a circuit area disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of transmissive areas (Park, DP, Fig. 11, para. 191); a plurality of connection lines (Park, SLT1, SLT2, 116, 118, Fig. 11, para. 200, 85, this applies to the portions of 116 and 118 at the bottom of SLT1 and SLT2), wherein each connection line is disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of transmissive areas; and a plurality of wiring lines (Park, PSL, Fig. 11, para. 192) disposed in the circuit area, wherein each of the plurality of wiring lines extends so as to intersect a corresponding one of the plurality of connection lines (Park, Fig. 11, PSL has vertical and horizontal portions, per para. 192 if reference to Fig. 11, the vertical portion intersects SLT2 and the horizontal portions intersect SLT1). Park does not teach wherein the plurality of wiring lines are disposed in different layers, and wherein a first undercut structure is formed under each of the plurality of wiring lines. However, Jo teaches wherein the plurality of wiring lines are disposed in different layers (Jo, 112c/112d, 112b, Fig. 8 para. 163, 112c/112d is the source/drain line and 112b is the gate line, 112b is on a lower layer than the top of 112c/112d). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the display panel of Park with the different layers of Jo in order to prevent deterioration of transmittance (Jo, para. 129). Additionally Kim teaches wherein a first undercut structure is formed under each of the plurality of wiring lines (Kim, CLM and CLS2, Fig. 8 para.163, undercut is unlabeled in the diagram). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the display panel of modified Park with the different layers of Jo in order to reduce contact resistance (Kim, para. 216). Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the circuit area further includes an overcoat layer (Park, 113, UC, Fig. 12, para. 147, 204), and wherein a second undercut structure is formed under the overcoat layer. Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the plurality of transmissive areas includes an organic material layer (Park, 116, Fig. 12 para. 85), wherein the organic material layer terminates so as to be discontinuous at a side end of the overcoat layer protruding outwardly beyond a side end of the second undercut structure such that the organic material layer is broken at the side end of the overcoat layer (Park, Fig. 12, para. 140). Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the second undercut structure is disposed at least partially above each of the plurality of connection lines (Park, Fig. 12, 116 and 118 are disposed below the top portions of the undercut). Regarding claim 5, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of connection lines includes: a first connection line (SLT1, Fig. 5, para. 160) disposed between transmissive areas arranged in the first direction among the plurality of transmissive areas; and a second connection line disposed between transmissive areas arranged in the second direction (SLT 2, Fig. 5, para. 160) among the plurality of transmissive areas. Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the plurality of wiring lines includes: a first wiring line (Park, PSL, Fig. 11, para. 192, horizontal portion) extending so as to intersect the first connection line; and a second wiring line (Park, PSL, Fig. 11, para. 192, vertical portion) extending so as to intersect the second connection line. Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the first wiring line (Jo, 112c/112d, Fig. 8, para. 163) and the second wiring line (Jo, 112b, Fig. 8, para. 163), are disposed in different layers, wherein the first wiring line is disposed in a first layer, and wherein the second wiring line is disposed in a second layer that is lower than the first layer (112c/112d is the source/drain line and 112b is the gate line, 112b is on a lower layer than the top of 112c/112d). Regarding claim 8, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 6 wherein the first wiring line includes one of a light blocking layer line and a plurality of source/drain lines (Jo, 112c/112d, Fig. 8 para. 163) extending from the display area to the non-pad area, and wherein the second wiring line (Jo, 112b, Fig. 8, para. 164) includes a gate electrode line extending from the display area to the non-pad area. Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of transmissive areas and a circuit area disposed in the display area, wherein an arrangement of the plurality of transmissive areas and the circuit area of the non-pad area is identical to an arrangement of the plurality of transmissive areas and the circuit area of the display area (Park, para. 59, states that the display area and non-display area are provided in a similar structure to reduce the visibility difference and prevent deterioration of the characteristics of visibility of the entire screen). Regarding claim 15, Park teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (Park, 100, Fig. 1, para. 41) including a display area (Park, DA, Fig. 3, para. 46) and a non-pad area (Park, NP, Fig. 3, para. 67) located outside the display area; a plurality of transmissive areas (Park, TR2, Fig. 11, para. 190) disposed in the non-pad area and spaced apart from each other in a first direction and a second direction different from the first direction; a circuit area disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of transmissive areas (Park, DP, Fig. 11, para. 191); a plurality of blocking channels (Park, SLT1, SLT2, Fig. 11, para. 200), wherein each connection line is disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of transmissive areas; and a plurality of wiring lines (Park, PSL, Fig. 11, para. 192) disposed in the circuit area, wherein each of the plurality of wiring lines extends so as to intersect a corresponding one of the plurality of blocking channels (Park, Fig. 11, PSL has vertical and horizontal portions, per para. 192 if reference to Fig. 11, the vertical portion intersects SLT2 and the horizontal portions intersect SLT1). Park does not teach wherein the plurality of wiring lines are disposed in different layers, and wherein a first undercut structure is formed under each of the plurality of wiring lines. However, Jo teaches wherein the plurality of wiring lines are disposed in different layers (Jo, 112c/112d, 112b, Fig. 8 para. 163, 112c/112d is the source/drain line and 112b is the gate line, 112b is on a lower layer than the top of 112c/112d). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the display panel of Park with the different layers of Jo in order to prevent deterioration of transmittance (Jo, para. 129). Additionally Kim teaches wherein a first undercut structure is formed under each of the plurality of wiring lines (Kim, CLM and CLS2, Fig. 8 para.163, undercut is unlabeled in the diagram). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the display panel of modified Park with the different layers of Jo in order to reduce contact resistance (Kim, para. 216). Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the circuit area further includes an overcoat layer (Park, 113 Fig. 12, para. 204), wherein a second undercut structure (Park, UC, Fig. 12, para. 149) is formed under the overcoat layer. Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of transmissive areas includes an organic material layer (Park, 116, Fig. 12, para. 140), wherein the organic material layer terminates so as to be discontinuous at a side end of the overcoat layer protruding outwardly beyond a side end of the second undercut structure under the overcoat layer (Park, Fig. 12). Regarding claim 20, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 19, further comprising a plurality of connection lines (Park, TD, 116, 118, Fig. 12, para. 126, 85, for 116, 118 applies to the portions disposed at the bottom of SLT1 and SLT2), wherein each of the plurality of connection lines is disposed at a corresponding one of the plurality of blocking channels (Park, Fig. 12), wherein each of the plurality of connection lines includes an organic material layer (Park, 116, Fig. 12, para. 85), and wherein the organic material layer of each of the plurality of connection lines is same as the organic material layer of the plurality of transmissive areas (Park, Fig. 12, the organic portions of the connecting line and the transmissive area are discontinuous portions of the same layer). Regarding claim 26, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 18, further comprising a plurality of connection lines (Park, SLT1, SLT2, Fig. 11, SLT2, 116, 118, Fig. 12, para 200), wherein each of the plurality of connection lines is disposed at a corresponding one of the plurality of blocking channels (Park, 116, 118, SLT 2, Fig. 12), wherein the second undercut structure is disposed at at least one of the plurality of blocking channels (Park, UC, Fig. 12, para. 149), and wherein the second undercut structure is disposed at least partially above at least one of the plurality of connection lines (Park, Fig. 12 UC is above 116 and 118 at the bottom of SLT2). Regarding claim 21, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 15 wherein the plurality of blocking channels includes: a first blocking channel (Park, SLT2, Fig. 11) disposed between transmissive areas arranged in the first direction among the plurality of transmissive areas; and a second blocking channel (Park, SLT1, Fig. 11) disposed between transmissive areas arranged in the second direction among the plurality of transmissive areas. Regarding claim 22, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of wiring lines includes: a first wiring line extending so as to intersect the first blocking channel (Park, PSL, vertical portion, Fig. 11); and a second wiring line (Park, PSL, horizontal portion, Fig. 11); extending so as to intersect the second blocking channel. Regarding claim 23, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 22, wherein the first wiring line (Jo, 112c/112d, Fig. 8, para. 163) and the second wiring line (Jo, Fig. 8, para. 163) are disposed in different layers, wherein the first wiring line is disposed in a first layer and wherein the second wiring line is disposed in a second layer that is lower than the first layer (112c/112d is the source/drain line and 112b is the gate line, 112b is on a lower layer than the top of 112c/112d). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Jo and Kim as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bang (US Pub. 20210320163), hereinafter referred to as Bang. Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 6, but does not teach wherein the first wiring line or the second wiring line is in a floating state in which the first wiring line or the second wiring line is not electrically connected. However, Bang teaches a display device wherein the electrode (Bang, DM, Fig. 5, para. 128) near the dead space area may be electrically floating. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the modified display device of Park with the floating electrode of Bang in order to prevent or reduce instances of static electricity being generated or introduced (Bang, para. 128). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Jo and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sonoda et al. (US Pub. 20200006702), hereinafter referred to as Sonoda. Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the display device further comprises: a pad area (Park, PA, Fig. 3, para 45) disposed on one side edge of the display panel opposite to the non-pad area. Park does not teach a cutting line located on the other side edge of the display panel opposite to the pad area, wherein the cutting line is configured to control a size of the display panel. However, Sonoda teaches a display device which contains a division line (Sonoda, DL, Fig. 2, para 107) which is used to divide and singulate the substrate into portions corresponding to the individual display devices (Sonoda, para. 127) Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the display device of modified Park with the division line of Sonoda in order to reduce moisture penetration and increase reliability (Sonoda para. 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 16 and 17 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 2, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach, nor does the prior art suggest wherein a side end of each of the plurality of wiring lines protrudes outwardly beyond a side end of a corresponding one of the first undercut structures such that each of the plurality of connection lines is divided into a first portion, and opposing second portions, wherein the opposing second portions are isolated from each other, and wherein the first portion is disposed on an upper surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of wiring lines, while the opposing second portions are disposed at opposing sides of the corresponding one of the plurality of wiring lines. Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches the display device of claim 15, further comprising a plurality of connection lines (Park, SLT1, SLT2, Fig. 11, para. 200), wherein each of the plurality of connection lines is disposed at a corresponding one of the plurality of blocking channels (Park, 116, 118, SLT 2, Fig. 12). However, modified Park does not teach, nor does the prior art suggest wherein a side end of each of the plurality of wiring lines protrudes outwardly beyond a side end of a corresponding one of the first undercut structures such that each of the plurality of connection lines is broken into a first portion and opposing second portions. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 depends on claim 16 and would be allowable if claim 16 was rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koh (US Pub. 20210202670) teaches a display device with a pad and a non-pad area and passivation films to block moisture. Ki (US Pub. 20230200197) teaches a method of manufacturing a display panel that incorporates undercuts. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:3. 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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. /KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12652781
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR POWER MODULE FOR INVERTER FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 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
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
2y 9m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1 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