Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/500,220

DISPLAY PANEL

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 02, 2023
Examiner
SYLVIA, CHRISTINA A
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
648 granted / 739 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
776
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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 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. Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 11/22/2023. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2024 and 11/02/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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) 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (PG Pub 2014/0183501; hereinafter Kim). PNG media_image1.png 418 850 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches a display panel comprising: a first pixel (A) comprising: a light emitting device 150a comprising: a first electrode 153a; and a second electrode 151a; and a transistor 130a electrically connected to the second electrode (see Fig. 1a); a second pixel B comprising: a light emitting device 150a comprising: a first electrode 151a; and a second electrode 153a; and a transistor 130a electrically connected to the second electrode (see Fig. 1a); a first insulating layer 114a disposed on the transistor of each of the first pixel and the second pixel (see Fig. 1a); a conductive pattern (annotated “pat-1” and “pat-2” in Fig.1 a above) disposed on the first insulating layer and comprising a first pattern (“pat-1”) corresponding to the first pixel and a second pattern (“pat-2”) corresponding to the second pixel and spaced apart from the first pattern (see Fig. 1a); and a separator 180a disposed between the first pattern and the second pattern and contacting a portion of the first insulating layer (see Fig. 1a), which is exposed and not covered by the first pattern and the second pattern, to separate the second electrode of the first pixel from the second electrode of the second pixel (see Fig. 1a). Regarding claim 2, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches a separation pattern (annotated “sep” in Fig. 1 a above) disposed on the separator (see Fig. 1a), wherein the separation pattern and the second electrode 151a of each of the first pixel and the second pixel have a same structure (see Fig.1a). Regarding claim 3, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches the separator (“sep”) comprises a bottleneck area (bottom area abutting 114a) adjacent to the first insulating layer 114a and a wide area (top surface) disposed at an upper side of the bottleneck area in a cross-section perpendicular to a direction in which the separator extends (see Fig. 1a). Regarding claim 4, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches the first pattern (“pat-1”) has a substantially closed-line shape in a plan view (see Fig. 1a). Regarding claim 5, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches the second electrode 151a of the first pixel (A) contacts the first pattern (see Fig. 1a), and at least a portion of an area where the second electrode of the first pixel contacts the first pattern overlap the separator (see Fig. 1a). Regarding claim 6, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches the conductive pattern (“pat-1” and “pat-2”) is insulated from the second electrode of the first pixel (116a,117a), and the conductive pattern receives a constant voltage. The recited “conductive pattern receives a constant voltage” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having the claimed structure of claim 1 and claim 6, which Han clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). Regarding claim 21, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 1a-provided above, Han teaches a display panel comprising: a pixel (A) comprising: a light emitting device 150a comprising a first electrode 151a and a second electrode 153a; and a transistor 130a electrically connected to the second electrode (see Fig. 1a); an insulating layer116a, 117a disposed on the transistor (indirectly) and including a light emitting opening (space containing 150a) that exposes a portion of the first electrode (see Fig. 1a); a separator 180a surrounding the light emitting opening in a plan view and contacting the insulating layer (see Fig. 1a); and a separation pattern (annotated “pat-1” and “pat-2” in Fig.1 a above) disposed on an upper surface of the separator and spaced apart from the second electrode (see Fig. 1a), the first electrode comprising: a first portion overlapping the light emitting opening in the plan view; a second portion overlapping the separator in the plan view; and a third portion connecting the first portion and the second portion (see Fig. 1a). Prior Art 2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: a. Han et al. (PG Pub 2017/0062548; hereinafter Han) teaches a light emitting device. Allowable Subject Matter 3. Claims 7-20 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: Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 7, a connection wiring partially covered by the first insulating layer and electrically connecting the transistor of the first pixel to the second electrode of the first pixel. Claims 8-20 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 7. 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 Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F). 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. 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. /CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 02, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599004
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH ACTIVE MOLD PACKAGE AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593705
HYBRID CORE SUBSTRATE WITH EMBEDDED COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593702
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575465
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564028
Dielectric Layers Having Nitrogen-Containing Crusted Surfaces
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
97%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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