Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/447,016

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 09, 2023
Examiner
SANTIAGO, MARICELI
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
816 granted / 1013 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1038
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1013 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 12, 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0087769 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a display device comprising: a substrate (100); a via layer (109/111) on the substrate; an anode electrode (113) on the via layer; a pixel-defining film (114) on the via layer and the anode electrode, and exposing a portion of the anode electrode (113); an organic layer (119) on the anode electrode; and a cathode electrode (120) on the organic layer, wherein the pixel-defining film (114) comprises a first region (118) comprising boron (¶[0132]), and a second region (114) other than the first region (Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the first region (118) is adjacent to the cathode electrode (120), and the second region (114) is adjacent to the anode electrode (113). Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the first region (118) is not in contact with a top surface of the via layer, and the second region (114) is in contact with the top surface of the via layer (Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the first region (118) covers the second region (114). Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein a thickness of the second region (114) is larger than a thickness of the first region (118, Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein a thickness of the first region is in a range of 0.005% to 0.025% of a thickness of the pixel-defining film (¶s[0131-0132]). Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the pixel-defining film (114) has an opening exposing a portion of the anode electrode, and the first region (118) comprises an inner circumferential surface of the opening (Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the first region (118) is parallel to a top surface of the via layer (Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki discloses a display device wherein the pixel-defining film has an opening exposing a portion of the anode electrode, and the second region (118) comprises at least part of an inner circumferential surface of the opening (Fig. 2B). 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0087769 A1). Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki discloses when the doping lowers the light transmittance of the pixel-defining film, such that the pixel-defining film can function as a black matrix with low transmittance (¶[0022]), but fail to state an optical density of the pixel-defining film is in a range of 0.7 to 1. One skilled in the art would have reasonable contemplate optimizing the optical density within the claimed ranges by using the doping material to control the transmittance of the pixel-defining film so it can function as a black matrix. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an optical density of the pixel-defining film is in a range of 0.7 to 1 in order to control the transmittance of the pixel-defining film so it can function as a black matrix, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim(s) 8, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 8, and specifically comprising the limitation of the first region forms a concentration gradient in which a concentration of the boron decreases from a surface of the pixel-defining film to the second region. Conclusion Kil et al. (US 2024/0244893 A1) discloses a display device including a planarization layer disposed above a substrate, a first bank disposed on the planarization layer, an anode disposed on the planarization layer and on a side surface of the first bank, a second bank covering a portion of the anode and the first bank and disposed above the first bank and the anode, a doping layer disposed on a top surface and a side portion of the second bank, an organic layer which is disposed on the doping layer and the anode, a cathode disposed on the organic layer, and an encapsulating unit disposed above the cathode. Xu et al. (CN 114420877 A) discloses a display device comprising a substrate, and a pixel definition layer and a light emitting structure layer set on the substrate; the pixel definition layer is doped with light-blocking material. Xu (CN 109301078 B) discloses a display device comprising a substrate; a pixel defining layer on the substrate, the pixel defining layer is doped with heating material, the heating material is the material capable of heating under the specified condition. The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, Jessica Han, can be reached on (571) 272-2078. 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. /Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604644
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588394
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588358
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581800
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581805
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
81%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1013 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