Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/499,377

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 01, 2023
Examiner
FERNANDES, ERROL V
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
667 granted / 786 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
814
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§112
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 786 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US 2017/0020007 A1. Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 11, Park discloses: A display device (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a first area (NBA1), a second area (NBA2), and a bending area (BA) between the first area and the second area; a light emitting element (240); an inorganic layer (310) disposed on the light emitting element; and a thin film encapsulation layer (320) disposed on the inorganic layer, wherein the inorganic layer includes a first inorganic pattern in the bending area (Figs. 4 and 7; BA region with 310 patterned with staircase sidewalls). (claims 2 and 3) Figs. 4 and 7, 310 in the horizontal direction. (claim 5) Fig. 4; 310 covering 240 in NBA area. (claims 6-8 and 10) Figs. 4 and 7. (claim 11) para 0063. Regarding claims 14-17, Park discloses: A display device (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a first area (NBA1) and a second area (NBA2) spaced apart from each other in a first direction; a bending area (BA) disposed between the first area and the second area and bendable with respect to a bending axis extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction; a light emitting element (240); an inorganic layer (310) disposed on the light emitting element; and a thin film encapsulation layer (320) disposed on the inorganic layer, wherein the inorganic layer includes a first inorganic pattern in the bending area (Figs. 4 and 7; BA region with 310 patterned with staircase sidewalls). (claims 15-17) Figs. 4 and 7. 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. Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 2017/0020007 A1. Regarding claims 12 and 13, although Park does not specifically disclose “(claim 12) wherein a refractive index of the inorganic layer is greater than or equal to about 1.0; (claim 13) wherein an extinction coefficient of the inorganic layer is less than or equal to about 4.0”, Park does disclose various materials available for use in the inorganic layer 310. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the material combination based on Park’s disclosure such that the claimed refractive index and extinction coefficient would be met. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Lesbin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 9 and 18-20 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: The prior art fails to teach or clearly suggest the limitations of claim 4 stating “wherein the first inorganic pattern includes holes spaced apart from each other”; of claim 9 stating “wherein the first to third inorganic patterns have a same pattern in a plan view”; and of claim 18 stating “a reflection control layer disposed on the inorganic layer”. In light of these limitations in the disclosure amongst others, the previously applied references do not anticipate or obviate the claims. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERROL V FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)270-7433. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5:30. 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, Britt Hanley can be reached on 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ERROL V FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, AU 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599043
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593738
FLIP CHIP PACKAGE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588470
GLASS CARRIER STACKED PACKAGE ASSEMBLY METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588554
Semiconductor Device and Method Forming Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581806
DISPLAY PANEL AND PREPARATION METHOD OF DISPLAY PANEL
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
85%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+4.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 786 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month