Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,271

DISPLAY PANELS AND DISPLAY DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
DIAZ, JOSE
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
580 granted / 660 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
672
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
§102
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 660 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al (20030222575), Yamazaki hereinafter. Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a display panel, comprising a display area (pixel portion, ¶ [77], fig. 1A) and a non-display area (drive circuit portion), and comprising: a substrate (910, ¶ [181], figs. 1A & 11B); a driving circuit layer, disposed on the substrate (910) and comprising a circuit unit (CU, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) arranged in the non-display area (drive circuit portion); a first organic layer (5, ¶ [77], fig. 1A), comprising a first covering part (CP, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) and a retaining wall part (RW, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) both disposed on a side of the circuit unit (CU) away from the substrate (910), wherein the first covering part (CP) is disposed in the display area (pixel portion) and extends to the non-display area (drive circuit portion) (see figure below), and the retaining wall part (RW) is disposed on a lateral side of the first covering part (CP) away from the display area (pixel portion) and spaced apart from the first covering part (CP); a waterproof layer (14, ¶ [85], fig. 1A), covering the retaining wall part (RW); and a sealant (19a, ¶ [90], fig. 1A), disposed in the non-display area (drive circuit portion) and on a side of the driving circuit layer away from the substrate (910) and a side of the waterproof layer (14) away from the substrate (910), wherein an orthographic projection of the sealant (19a) on the substrate (910) overlaps with an orthographic projection of the retaining wall part (RW) on the substrate (910) (see figure below), and an orthographic projection of an end of the circuit unit (CU) away from the display area (pixel portion) on the substrate (910) is located within the orthographic projection of the retaining wall part (RW) on the substrate (910) (see figure below). PNG media_image1.png 300 868 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki discloses that the waterproof layer (14) corresponds to the non-display area (drive circuit portion) and covers a side of the first organic layer (5) away from the substrate (910) (See figs. 1A & 11B). Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki discloses that a material of the waterproof layer (14) comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, and aluminum oxide (¶ [85]). Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki discloses that the driving circuit layer further comprises a wiring unit (10, ¶ [83], fig. 1A) on a lateral side of the circuit unit (CU) away from the display area (pixel portion), and the orthographic projection of the sealant (19a) on the substrate (910) covers an orthographic projection of the wiring unit (10) on the substrate (910). Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki discloses a display device, comprising a display panel (2003, ¶ [195], fig. 12A), wherein the display panel (2003) comprises a display area (pixel portion, ¶ [77], fig. 1A) and a non-display area (drive circuit portion), and comprises: a substrate (910, ¶ [181], figs. 1A & 11B); a driving circuit layer, disposed on the substrate (910) and comprising a circuit unit (CU, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) arranged in the non-display area (drive circuit portion); a first organic layer (5, ¶ [77], fig. 1A), comprising a first covering part (CP, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) and a retaining wall part (RW, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) both disposed on a side of the circuit unit (CU) away from the substrate (910), wherein the first covering part (CP) is disposed in the display area (pixel portion) and extends to the non-display area (drive circuit portion) (see figure below), and the retaining wall part (RW) is disposed on a lateral side of the first covering part (CP) away from the display area (pixel portion) and spaced apart from the first covering part (CP); a waterproof layer (14, ¶ [85], fig. 1A), covering the retaining wall part (RW); and a sealant (19a, ¶ [90], fig. 1A), disposed in the non-display area (drive circuit portion) and on a side of the driving circuit layer away from the substrate (910) and a side of the waterproof layer (14) away from the substrate (910), wherein an orthographic projection of the sealant (19a) on the substrate (910) overlaps with an orthographic projection of the retaining wall part (RW) on the substrate (910) (see figure below), and an orthographic projection of an end of the circuit unit (CU) away from the display area (pixel portion) on the substrate (910) is located within the orthographic projection of the retaining wall part (RW) on the substrate (910) (see figure below). PNG media_image1.png 300 868 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (20030222575), Yamazaki hereinafter, in view of Wu (20190067629), Wu hereinafter. Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses that the retaining wall part (RW) comprises a dam (DM, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above), and the waterproof layer (14) covers the dam (DM) and a portion between the dam (DM) and the first covering part (CP). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that the waterproof layer is continuous. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses a waterproof layer (41, ¶ [60], fig. 4) that continuously covers a dam (31, ¶ [63]) and a portion between the dam (31), in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have the waterproof layer to be continuous as taught by Wu in the device of Yamazaki, in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses that the retaining wall part (RW) comprises a plurality of dams (DM, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above), and the waterproof layer (14) covers the plurality of dams (DM), portions between any two adjacent ones of the dams (DM), and a portion between the first covering part (CP) and one of the dams (DM) adjacent to the first covering part (CP). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that the waterproof layer is continuous. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses a waterproof layer (41, ¶ [60], fig. 4) that continuously covers a plurality of dams (31, ¶ [63]) and portions between any two adjacent ones of the dams (DM), in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have the waterproof layer to be continuous as taught by Wu in the device of Yamazaki, in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki discloses that the retaining wall part (RW) comprises a dam (DM, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above), and the waterproof layer (14) covers the dam (DM) and a portion between the dam (DM) and the first covering part (CP). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that the waterproof layer is continuous. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses a waterproof layer (41, ¶ [60], fig. 4) that continuously covers a dam (31, ¶ [63]) and a portion between the dam (31), in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have the waterproof layer to be continuous as taught by Wu in the device of Yamazaki, in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki discloses that the retaining wall part (RW) comprises a plurality of dams (DM, hereinafter as denoted on the figure above), and the waterproof layer (14) covers the plurality of dams (DM), portions between any two adjacent ones of the dams (DM), and a portion between the first covering part (CP) and one of the dams (DM) adjacent to the first covering part (CP). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that the waterproof layer is continuous. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses a waterproof layer (41, ¶ [60], fig. 4) that continuously covers a plurality of dams (31, ¶ [63]) and portions between any two adjacent ones of the dams (DM), in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have the waterproof layer to be continuous as taught by Wu in the device of Yamazaki, in order to form a complicated path that retards invasion of water vapor and oxygen. Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (20030222575), Yamazaki hereinafter, in view of Yamazaki et al (20050073247), Yamazaki’247 hereinafter. Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki discloses a package substrate (18, ¶ [90], figs. 1A & 11B) disposed opposite to the substrate (910), wherein the sealant (19a) is arranged between the substrate (910) and the package substrate (18) and is located in a boundary area (fig. 3A), an enclosed area (907, ¶ [179], fig. 11B) is defined between the substrate (910) and the package substrate (18) and surrounded by the sealant (19a). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that a filling glue is filled in the enclosed area. Meanwhile, ¶ [186] of Yamazaki discloses that the space (907) may be included with the substance having an effect of absorbing oxygen of water In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki’247 discloses an enclosed area that is filled with a resin (8001, ¶ [123], fig. 8) in which a desiccant (8002) is dispersed, a resin is well known in the art to be used as glue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have a filling glue been filled in the enclosed area as taught by Yamazaki’247 in the device of Yamazaki, since a resin is well known in the art to be used as glue. Regarding claim 20, Yamazaki discloses that the display panel comprises a package substrate (18, ¶ [90], figs. 1A & 11B) disposed opposite to the substrate (910), wherein the sealant (19a) is arranged between the substrate (910) and the package substrate (18) and is located in a boundary area (fig. 3A), an enclosed area (907, ¶ [179], fig. 11B) is defined between the substrate (910) and the package substrate (18) and surrounded by the sealant (19a). However, Yamazaki fails to exemplify that a filling glue is filled in the enclosed area. Meanwhile, ¶ [186] of Yamazaki discloses that the space (907) may be included with the substance having an effect of absorbing oxygen of water In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki’247 discloses an enclosed area that is filled with a resin (8001, ¶ [123], fig. 8) in which a desiccant (8002) is dispersed, a resin is well known in the art to be used as glue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to have a filling glue been filled in the enclosed area as taught by Yamazaki’247 in the device of Yamazaki, since a resin is well known in the art to be used as glue. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-9 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if at least one the limitations indicated below were included in the base claim. Regarding claim 4, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 4, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a second organic layer disposed on a side of the waterproof layer away from the first organic layer, wherein the second organic layer comprises a second covering part and a filling part, the second covering part is disposed in the display area and extends to the non-display area, the filling part is disposed on a lateral side of the second covering part away from the display area, and the filling part is disposed between any two adjacent ones of the dams and between the first covering part and the one of the dams adjacent to the first covering part. Regarding claims 5-9, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 4 because of their dependency status from claim 4. Regarding claim 17, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 17, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the display panel comprises a second organic layer disposed on a side of the waterproof layer away from the first organic layer, the second organic layer comprises a second covering part and a filling part, the second covering part is disposed in the display area and extends to the non-display area, the filling part is disposed on a lateral side of the second covering part away from the display area, and the filling part is disposed between any two adjacent ones of the dams and between the first covering part and the one of the dams adjacent to the first covering part. Regarding claims 18-19, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 17 because of their dependency status from claim 17. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M. DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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 R Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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. /JOSE M DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /ANNE M HINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604652
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY MODULE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593586
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593593
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581832
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOTHERBOARD STRUCTURE, DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581831
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
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
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+7.5%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 660 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