Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/469,590

APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
782 granted / 1241 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1294
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1241 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 10-2018-0038093 A). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, Park et al. teach an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (Paragraph 0101), the apparatus comprising: a deposition source (Paragraph 0101 – 700); and a mask assembly (Paragraph 0101 – 1010) disposed between a substrate (Paragraph 0101 – substrate 600) and the deposition source (Paragraph 0101 – 700), wherein the mask assembly comprises: a mask frame having an opening area (Fig. 13. – 340; Fig. 17 – 350); a first support frame disposed across the opening area in a first direction, and having both ends disposed on the mask frame (Fig. 13. – 240; Fig. 17 – 150, 250); and a second support frame disposed across the opening area in a second direction, and having both ends disposed on the mask frame (Fig. 13 – 140; Fig. 17 – 150, 250), the first support frame and the second support frame intersect each other (Fig. 13 – 140, 240; Fig. 17 – 150, 250), one of the first support frame and the second support frame comprises an accommodation portion (Fig. 13 – 140g; Fig. 17 – 150g, 250g), and the other of the first support frame and the second support frame is inserted into the accommodation portion (Fig. 13 – 240; Fig. 17 – 150g, 250 g). DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: Regarding claim 2, Park et al. teach wherein a surface of the first support frame and a surface of the second support frame, both facing the substrate, are disposed on a flat surface. (Fig. 21 – flat surface of substrate) DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: Regarding claim 6, Park et al. teach wherein a side surface of the other of the first support from and the second support frame inserted into the accommodation portion has a substantially step shape. (Figs. 17 – 250g) DEPENDENT CLAIM 10: Regarding claim 10, Park et al. teach wherein an upper surface of the mask frame has a substantially step shape. (See Fig. 3 – item 310 frame having “a substantially step shape” 311) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11: Regarding claim 11, Park et al. teach a method of manufacturing a display device (Paragraph 0101), the method comprising: disposing a substrate and a mask assembly (Paragraph 0101; Fig. 21); and depositing a deposition material on the substrate by passing the deposition material through the mask assembly (Paragraph 0101), wherein the mask assembly comprises: a mask frame having an opening area (Fig. 13. – 340; Fig. 17 – 350); a first support frame disposed across the opening area in a first direction, and having both ends disposed on the mask frame (Fig. 13. – 240; Fig. 17 – 150, 250); and a second support frame disposed across the opening area in a second direction, and having both ends disposed on the mask frame (Fig. 13 – 140; Fig. 17 – 150, 250), the first support frame and the second support frame intersect each other (Fig. 13 – 140, 240; Fig. 17 – 150, 250), one of the first support frame and the second support frame comprises an accommodation portion (Fig. 13 – 140g; Fig. 17 – 150g, 250g), and the other of the first support frame and the second support frame is inserted into the accommodation portion (Fig. 13 – 240; Fig. 17 – 150g, 250 g). DEPENDENT CLAIM 12: Regarding claim 12, Park et al. teach wherein a surface of the first support frame and a surface of the second support frame, both facing the substrate, are disposed on a flat surface. (Fig. 21 – flat surface of substrate) DEPENDENT CLAIM 16: Regarding claim 16, Park et al. teach wherein a side surface of the other of the first support from and the second support frame inserted into the accommodation portion has a substantially step shape. (Figs. 17 – 250g) DEPENDENT CLAIM 20: Regarding claim 20, Park et al. teach wherein an upper surface of the mask frame has a substantially step shape. (See Fig. 3 – item 310 frame having “a substantially step shape” 311) 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. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2018-0038093 A) in view of Kim (U.S. PGUB. 2022/0181595 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 13: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the other of the first support frame and the second support frame is inserted into the accommodation portion comprises a welding recess. Regarding claims 3, 13, Kim teach utilizing welding recess 125 to join masks. (Fig. 7; Paragraph 0127) The motivation for utilizing the features of Kim is that it allows for improving mechanical strength. (Paragraph 0016) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Park et al. by utilizing the recess for welding as taught by Kim because it allows for improving mechanical strength. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 are 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: Claims 4, 5, 14, 15 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein the accommodation portion comprises: a first accommodation portion; and a second accommodation portion disposed below the first accommodation portion, and having a width less than a width of the first accommodation portion. Claims 7, 8, 17, 18 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein one of the first support frame and the second support frame comprises a through portion disposed in the one of the first support frame and the second support frame to be connected to the accommodation portion. Claims 9, 19 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein a cross-section of at least one of the first support frame and the second support frame has a substantially trapezoidal shape, and the cross-section of the at least one of the first support frame and the second support frame is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.. 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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. /RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 RM January 30, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603264
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING TOOL AND METHODS OF OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595548
DOPED NICKEL OXIDE TARGET AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584217
TRAY ASSEMBLIES FOR PRECURSOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580157
Grid Assembly for Plasma Processing Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577638
CASTABLE ALUMINUM ALLOYS FOR WAFER HANDLING CHAMBERS IN SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING SYSTEMS
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
63%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1241 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