Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/406,822

WINDOW, DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE WINDOW, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE WINDOW

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 08, 2024
Examiner
VAN SELL, NATHAN L
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
450 granted / 841 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
918
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
65.3%
+25.3% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged. Claims 12-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/25. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al (US 2022/0242780 A1). Regarding claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11, Hunt teaches a display device comprising a display module; and a window disposed on the display module, the window comprising a tempered glass substrate (para 3, 12, 117-118, 124) containing a Li+ ion, a Na+ ion, and a K+ ion (e.g., K-enriched, Li-enriched, and Na-enriched), the tempered glass substrate including a base layer and compressive stress layers disposed on at least one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the base layer (e.g., central region) (130) (para 3, 12, 87, 109, 120, 117-118, 124, 199, fig 1a). Hunt teaches the glass-based articles may have a thickness of greater than 0.02 millimeters (i.e., 20 µm) to less than or equal to 0.74 millimeters (i.e., 740 µm) (para 106). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hunt, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding the limitations: a first region having a first compressive stress change rate a second region having a second compressive stress change rate smaller than the first compressive stress change rate each of the first compressive stress change rate and the second compressive stress change rate is defined as a rate of change of compressive stress depending on a depth based on a thickness direction of the tempered glass substrate the second region includes a first portion adjacent to the first region, the first portion including a first point; a second portion adjacent to the base layer, the second portion including a second point; and a third portion disposed between the first portion and the second portion, the third portion including a third point a compressive stress at the first point is in a range of about 100 MPa to about 250 MPa, a compressive stress at the second point is in a range of about 50 MPa to 150 about MPa, a compressive stress at the third point is in a range of about 70 MPa to about 200 MPa the first point is located at a depth of about 30 μm from a surface of the tempered glass substrate based on the thickness direction the second point is located at a depth of about 70 μm from the surface of the tempered glass substrate based on the thickness direction the third point is located at a depth of about 50 μm from the surface of the tempered glass substrate based on the thickness direction the compressive stress layer has a thickness in a range of about 100 μm to about 130 μm the first region is spaced apart from the base layer with the second region being disposed between the first region and the base layer Hunt teaches, in regards to glass and being subjected to ion exchange (IOX) the depth of a segment (i.e., region) of increased compressive stress (e.g., strength) (enhanced CS) is dependent upon its ion exchange time (para 79); compressive stress (CS) changes rate or at a specific point is also dependent upon the depth of the point in the substrate after (IOX); and CS is also dependent upon the bath composition in which the glass is submerged; wherein the glass may subjected to multiple IOXs with different bath compositions, and the enhanced-CS region may contain CS values above 100 MPa, above 110 MPa, 120 MPa, 130 MPa, 140 MPa, 150 MPa, and as much as 350 MPa and all ranges therebetween; and in some embodiments the glass-based articles comprise: a depth of compression (DOC) of greater than or equal to 0.12·t (e.g., 20 µm) and/or less than or equal to 0.25·t (e.g., 740 µm), so 2.4 µm to 185 µm (para 19-45, 60-63, 66, 80, 97, 106; figs 3-29). Therefore, when arriving at the first and second compressive stress change rates; the compressive stress at the first, second, and third points as well as the location of the first, second, and third points; the compressive stress layer thickness; and the location of the first and second region, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely experimenting with and adjusting the variables of immersion time and bath composition through multiple immersions to optimize the first and second compressive stress change rates; the compressive stress at the first, second, and third points as well as the location of the first, second, and third points; the compressive stress layer thickness; and the location (or depth) of the first and second region. As previously noted, Hunt teaches the enhanced-CS region may contain CS values above 100 MPa, above 110 MPa, 120 MPa, 130 MPa, 140 MPa, 150 MPa, and as much as 350 MPa and all ranges therebetween; and in some embodiments the glass-based articles comprise: a depth of compression (DOC) of greater than or equal to 0.12·t (e.g., t = 20 µm) and/or less than or equal to 0.25·t ( e.g., t = 785 µm); so a range of 2.4 µm to 185 µm (para 19-45, 60-63, 66, 80, 97, 106; figs 3-29). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hunt, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, Hunt teaches the compressive stresses are measured in ASTM standard C770-16 (para 66) Regarding claims 4, 5, and 10, Hunt teaches a compressive stress on a surface of the tempered glass substrate is in a range greater than or equal to 450 MPa and less than or equal to 1700 MPa (para 105). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hunt, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding the limitation “wherein a value obtained by integrating compressive stress depending on a depth of the compressive stress layer is in a range of about 10,000 J/m2 to about 14,000 J/m2, Hunt suggests or otherwise would have rendered obvious the structure and composition of the window of the instant claims, so it is deemed to meet this limitation and/or possess this property. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art. 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm. 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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. NATHAN VAN SELL Primary Examiner Art Unit 1783 /NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600080
DIGITAL PRINTED 3-D PATTERNED EMBLEM WITH GRAPHICS FOR SOFT GOODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602080
STACKED BODY FOR FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE, STACKED BODY FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594747
BEZELS FOR FOLDABLE DISPLAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595178
FILM-LIKE GRAPHITE, MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME, AND BATTERY USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596408
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
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
54%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+24.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 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