Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/455,666

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
GHEYAS, SYED I
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
549 granted / 666 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 666 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Invention I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 25, 2023 was 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 § 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. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Fish et al. discloses a display device comprising: a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area adjacent to the light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4); a first conductive layer disposed on a substrate in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – first conductive layer 132 (first capacitor plate); substrate 120); PNG media_image1.png 236 510 media_image1.png Greyscale a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – second conductive layer 27); a first insulating film disposed on the first conductive layer, overlapping the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer in the light emitting area, and having a first permittivity (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – first insulating film 130 (first insulating layer) having a first dielectric permittivity); and a second insulating film disposed between the first insulating film and the second conductive layer, disposed in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area, overlapping the first insulating film and the first conductive layer, and having a second permittivity greater than the first permittivity (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – second insulating film 140 (first insulating layer) having a second dielectric permittivity; this prior art clearly teaches that the permittivity of the second insulating film, at least according to one embodiment, may be greater than the permittivity of the first insulating film). Regarding Claim 2, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the display device, wherein the first insulating film and the second insulating film include different materials (Par. 0034; Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 5, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the display device, wherein the first insulating film has a same shape as the first conductive layer in the light emitting area (Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 6, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the display device, wherein, the first conductive layer defines at least one first opening disposed in the light emitting area, and the first insulating film defines at least one second opening disposed in the light emitting area (Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 8, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the display device, further comprising: a light emitting diode disposed on the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area (Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 9, Fish et al., as applied to claim 8, discloses the display device, wherein the light emitting diode includes: the second conductive layer; a light emitting layer disposed on the second conductive layer; and a common electrode disposed on the light emitting layer (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – second conductive layer 27; light emitting layer 2; common electrode 28). Regarding Claim 14, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses the display device, wherein each of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer includes a metal material (Par. 0031). 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Myung et al. (Pub. No. : KR 20210045581A). Regarding Claim 3, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the display device, wherein the first insulating film includes at least one selected from a group consisting of acrylate and siloxane hybrid. However, Myung et al. teaches the display device, wherein the first insulating film includes at least one selected from a group consisting of acrylate and siloxane hybrid (abstract; Par. 0056 - this prior art teaches use of a low dielectric constant material comprising acrylate and siloxane in display devices as it improves the performance of the device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Myung et al. to adapt the display device, wherein the first insulating film of Fish et al. includes at least one selected from a group consisting of acrylate and siloxane hybrid in order to suppress parasitic capacitance and hence improve device performance. Claims 4 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1), as applied to claims 1 & 8, further in view of Lee (Pub. No. : US 2021/0020714 A1). Regarding Claim 4, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the display device, wherein the second insulating film includes a photo-sensitive polyimide-based resin. However, Lee, at least implicitly, teaches the display device, wherein the second insulating film includes a photo-sensitive polyimide-based resin (Par. 0089; Fig. 7 - second insulating film P_IS2 includes photo-sensitive polyimide). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Lee to adapt the display device, wherein the second insulating film of Fish et al. includes a photo-sensitive polyimide-based resin in order to have an insulating material that provides good isolation with reasonable dielectric constant and can be formed and patterned with simple processes. . Regarding Claim 10, Fish et al., as applied to claim 8, discloses the display device, further comprising: a transistor disposed on the substrate and disposed under the first conductive layer (Par. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 – drive transistor 12). Fish et al. does not disclose the display device, further comprising: the transistor disposed under the first conductive layer. However, Lee, at least implicitly, teaches the display device, further comprising: the transistor disposed under the first conductive layer (Fig. 7). Fish et al. teaches a bottom-gate transistor. If it were a top gate transistor, at least a portion of the transistor would be disposed under the first conductive layer. Top-gate transistors are ubiquitously known and are known to provide better device performances. Lee teaches such a top-gate transistor, the teachings of which could be incorporated to modify the device of Fish et al. to achieve better device performance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Lee to adapt the display device, further comprising: the transistor disposed under the first conductive layer of Fish et al. in order to have an better device performance. Regarding Claim 11, modified Fish et al., as applied to claim 10, discloses the display device, wherein the transistor includes: an active layer disposed on the substrate; a gate electrode disposed on the active layer; and a source electrode and a drain electrode connected to the active layer on the gate electrode (Lee – Par. 0084; Fig. 7 - active layer SM; substrate SUB; gate electrode GE; source electrode SE; drain electrode DE). Regarding Claim 12, modified Fish et al., as applied to claim 10, discloses the display device, wherein the transistor is electrically connected to the light emitting diode through the first conductive layer (Lee – Par. 0084; Fig. 7 in light of rejection of claim 10). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1), as applied to claim 1. Regarding Claim 13, Fish et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the display device, wherein the first conductive layer further includes a data line. Fish et al. teaches first conductive layer comprises a gate electrode. It is silent regarding whether the data line is formed of the first conductive layer. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the display device, wherein the first conductive layer further includes a data line is well known in the art (see, for example, US 20110109532 A1 – Par. 0015 & 0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the display device, wherein the first conductive layer of Fish et al. further includes a data line in order to satisfy overall design of the device. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fish et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0132051 A1), as applied to claim 14, further in view of Min (Pub. No. : US 2015/0069340 A1). Regarding Claim 15, Fish et al., as applied to claim 14, does not explicitly disclose the display device, wherein the second conductive layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnO), indium oxide (In2O3), indium gallium oxide (IGO), and aluminum zinc oxide (AZO). However, Min, at least implicitly, teaches the display device, wherein the second conductive layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnO), indium oxide (In2O3), indium gallium oxide (IGO), and aluminum zinc oxide (AZO) (Par. 0037; Fig. 2 - the second conductive layer comprising pixel electrode 710 is formed of transparent conductor such as ITO or IZO). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Min to adapt the display device, wherein the second conductive layer of Fish et al. includes at least one selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnO), indium oxide (In2O3), indium gallium oxide (IGO), and aluminum zinc oxide (AZO) in order to fabricate a display device with a certain overall design. Allowable Subject Matter 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1. Kim et al. (Pub No.: US 2019/0189941 A1) – This prior art teaches a display device comprising: a light emitting area and a non-light emitting area adjacent to the light emitting area; a first conductive layer (G3) disposed on a substrate (110) in the light emitting area and the non-light emitting area; a second conductive layer (C3) disposed on the first conductive layer and disposed in the light emitting area; a first insulating film (131/130) disposed on the first conductive layer (G3), overlapping the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer in the light emitting area, and having a first permittivity; and a second insulating film (140) disposed between the first insulating film (131/130) and the second conductive layer (C3), disposed in the light emitting area Par. 0079; Fig. 9). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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. 02/04/2026 //SYED I GHEYAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593461
HIGH FREQUENCY HETEROJUNCTION BIPOLAR TRANSISTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588227
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588259
LATERAL BIPOLAR TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581796
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575139
FET WITH MULTI-VALUE SWITCHING FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
82%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+4.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 666 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