Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/524,958

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Examiner
RUMMEL, IAN A
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
318 granted / 568 resolved
-9.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
595
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 568 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12-03-2025 is acknowledged. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-9 and 11-14 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: Although the prior art teaches a similar display device, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such a display device in which each of the first and second protection layers includes at least one of an epoxy-based resin, a urethane-based resin, an acrylic resin, or a silicon-based resin (as in claim 8), or in which the display module comprises an optical layer that is disposed on the panel and comprises a pigment or dye (as in claim 11). Claims 9 and 12-14 would likewise be allowable due to their dependency from claims 8 and 11. 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., US PGPub. No. 2021/0193962 A1. Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a display device (Abstract, Fig. 11) comprising a display module (“DP” of Fig 11, see [0109]) and a protection member comprising a first protection layer (“AL1” of Fig. 11) having a storage modulus of between 0.005 and 0.2 MPa at room temperature (Table 4) and a second protection layer (“PPF” of Fig. 11) that is disposed on the first layer and has a Young’s modulus of between 1 GPa and 8 GPa at room temperature ([0007]). The teachings of Song differ from the present invention in that Song does not teach a thickness of 300 microns to 1 mm for the second layer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness for the second layer of the product of Song based on the intended thickness of the product and desired material properties of the product, as well as the specific materials being used to make the layer. Additionally, the claimed thickness of 300 microns to 1 mm appears to be an arbitrary recitation of size, which cannot distinguish the claimed invention (see MPEP (2144.04 IV). Regarding claim 2, Song teaches that the protection member (“AL1” and “PPF” of Fig. 11) are disposed direction on the display module (“DP” of Fig. 11). Regarding claim 3, Song does not teach a glass substrate as a component of the protection member, and instead teaches a variety of polymer materials ([0055]-[0056]). Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Song differ from the present invention in that Song does not teach a thickness of 100 microns to 1 mm for the first layer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness for the first layer of the product of Song based on the intended thickness of the product and desired material properties of the product, as well as the specific materials being used to make the layer. Additionally, the claimed thickness of 100 microns to 1 mm appears to be an arbitrary recitation of size, which cannot distinguish the claimed invention (see MPEP (2144.04 IV). Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Song differ from the present invention in that Song does not teach any relative thickness for the first and second layers. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness for each layer of the product of Song based on the intended thickness of the product and desired material properties of the product, as well as the specific materials being used to make the layers. Additionally, arbitrary recitations of relative proportion cannot distinguish the claimed invention (see MPEP (2144.04 IV). Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Song differ from the present invention in that Song does not teach a thickness of 400 microns to 2 mm for the protection member. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness for the protection member of the product of Song based on the intended thickness of the product and desired material properties of the product, as well as the specific materials being used to make the protection member. Additionally, the claimed thickness of 400 microns to 2 mm appears to be an arbitrary recitation of size, which cannot distinguish the claimed invention (see MPEP (2144.04 IV). Regarding claim 7, Song teaches that the second layer (“PPF” of Fig. 11) is disposed directly on the first layer (“AL1” of Fig. 11). Regarding claim 10, although Song teaches that the product may include a polarizer ([0053]), the inclusion of a polarizer is clearly taught to be optional. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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. /IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 26, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601970
PHOTOSENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PATTERNED CURED PRODUCT, CURED PRODUCT, INTERLAYER INSULATING FILM, COVER COAT LAYER, SURFACE PROTECTIVE FILM, AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589607
PRINTING PROCESSES FOR PRODUCING TEXTURED IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569878
PLATED STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552955
COATING COMPOSITION AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545797
INKJET INKS FOR METALLIC PRINTED IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
56%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 568 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