Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/537,509

ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING PANEL AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Examiner
SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
651 granted / 914 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
987
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 914 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Since the interview which was conducted on 10/24/2025, further consideration of the reference by the examiner, Choi discloses the claimed invention. See rejection below. 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)(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 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14, 16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHOI et al. 20200212115. PNG media_image1.png 639 843 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an organic light-emitting panel comprising: a substrate 100 having thereon an active area DA with a transistor 130 and a non-active area PA located at a periphery of the active area; a planarization layer 113 disposed on the transistor of the active area and on the non-active area; a passivation layer 109 (inherent passivation layer) disposed beneath the planarization layer; a first electrode 210 disposed on the planarization layer and electrically connected to the transistor; a plurality of dams (DM1/2) located in the non-active area, the plurality of dams including a first dam DM1 that is closest to the active area; a bank 120 disposed on the planarization layer, the bank having a first side surface and a second side surface opposite the first side surface (as labeled by examiner above), the first side surface and the second side surface having different inclinations, such that the first side surface of the bank facing the first dam defines a wider base relative to the second surface; a connector electrode 75/75A disposed on the planarization layer in the non-active area; and a pad electrode 70 disposed adjacent to at least one of the plurality of dams, wherein the connector electrode is disposed between the planarization layer 113 and the bank, and along a side surface of the planarization layer, and wherein the pad electrode 70 and the connector electrode are 75A electrically connected, wherein the side surface of the planarization layer includes a first side surface having a first inclination (as labeled by examiner above), the first side surface of the planarization layer being located closest to the first dam among a plurality of side surfaces of the planarization layer in the non-active area, wherein the first side surface of the bank having a third inclination (as labeled by examiner above) being closest to the first dam among a plurality of side surfaces of the bank, wherein the passivation layer has a contact hole (as labeled by examiner above) between a first side surface of the planarization layer and the first dam DM1 (see portion of the contact hole which is still a contact hole), wherein the connector electrode 75A and the pad electrode 70 are in contact within the contact hole, and wherein a region is provided between the first side surface of the planarization layer and the first dam in which the connector electrode and the pad electrode are not connected through the passivation layer (see region above 75A above the contact hole). Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses further comprising: an organic layer 220 (as it is organic light emitting – par [0080]) disposed on the first electrode; a second electrode 230 disposed on the organic layer; and an encapsulation member 150 disposed on the second electrode, wherein the bank has a first open area (region between 120) in the active area, and wherein the organic layer is disposed in the first open area. Regarding claim 5, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the connector electrode 75/75Ais electrically connected to the second electrode through a second open area (VP is open area because there is no 120 element there) of the bank in the non-active area. Regarding claim 7, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the planarization layer includes a contact hole (contact on from 210 to 130) in the active area. Regarding claim 8, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the planarization layer includes a second side surface having a second inclination around the contact hole (side of contact hole), and wherein the first inclination is different from the second inclination. Regarding claim 9, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the first inclination is smaller than the second inclination. Regarding claim 12, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein, in the non-active area, the bank is disposed to overlap a top surface of the planarization layer and expose the first side surface of the planarization layer. Regarding claim 14, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein an outermost portion of the top surface of the planarization layer is located closer to the plurality of dams than an end portion of the first side surface of the bank. Regarding claim 16, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein, in the non-active area, a second encapsulation layer 153 is disposed to at least partially cover the first side surface of the planarization layer and the first side surface of the bank. PNG media_image2.png 599 606 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 21, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the pad electrode and the connector electrode are electrically connected at a first area in the non-active area, wherein the first area does not overlap with the first dam of the plurality of dams from a plan view. Regarding claim 22, fig. 7 of Choi discloses wherein the pad electrode and the connector electrode are in direct contact at the first area. 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. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Kang et al. 20070164294. Regarding claim 23, fig. 7 of Choi (as labeled by examiner) discloses wherein the third inclination is smaller than the first inclination. Choi does not disclose wherein the first inclination is ranging from 15 degree to 30 degree. However, fig. 2 and par [0039] The planarization layer 250 may comprise a normal tapered edge portion. A taper angle r1 of the edge portion of the planarization layer 250 may be about 15 degrees to 60 degrees. Preferably, a taper angle r1 of the edge portion of the planarization layer 250 may be about 15 degrees to 30 degrees – this allows for better flow coverage for processing step of next layer. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Choi comprising wherein the first inclination is ranging from 15 degree to 30 degree such as taught by Kang in order to allow better flow of next processing step(s). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST. 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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. /VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 13, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604622
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598804
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598779
Gate-All-Around Device with Protective Dielectric Layer and Method of Forming the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588424
NONVOLATILE MEMORY ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581835
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 914 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