Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/537,565

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Examiner
KIM, TONG-HO
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
991 granted / 1040 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1082
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0045124) in view of Lee (US 9,146,400). Regarding claim 1, Lee124 discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, a display device comprising: a plurality of display panel tiles (10-1/10-2/10-3/10-4, [177]), each comprising a display area (DA, [60]) comprising a plurality of pixels (LA1/LA2/LA3, [64]) and a peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]) around the display area (DA, [60]), each one of the plurality of display panel tiles (10-1/10-2/10-3/10-4, [177]) comprising: a display element (EL, [84]) in the display area (DA, [60]); a thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]) covering the display element (EL, [84]); a first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) arranged on the thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]) and having an opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) partially overlapping a pixel of the plurality of pixels (LA1/LA2/LA3, [64]) at an outermost part of the display area (DA, [60]); a second insulating layer (BS1/BS3, [98], [111]) filling the opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) of the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]); and a film (20, [177]) on the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]). Lee124 does not explicitly disclose a refractive film. Lee400 teaches, in at least figures 2A, 2B, 3C, and related text, the device comprising a refractive film (220/350, col. 4/ line 60-col. 5/ line 18), for the purpose of providing seam-concealing optical element to resulted in a tiled multi-panel display with substantially flat surface (col. 3/ lines 57-63). Lee124 and Lee400 are analogous art because they both are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee124 with the specified features of Lee400 because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Lee124 to have the refractive film, as taught by Lee400, for the purpose of providing seam-concealing optical element to resulted in a tiled multi-panel display with substantially flat surface (col. 3/ lines 57-63, Lee400). Regarding claim 2, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, the opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) is provided along an edge of the display area (DA, [60]). Regarding claim 3, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, a side surface of the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) defining the opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) comprises a forward tapered slope. Regarding claim 4, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) comprises an inclined surface in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]), and the refractive film (20, [177]) is on the inclined surface. Regarding claim 11, Lee124 discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, a display device comprising: a plurality of display panel tiles (10-1/10-2/10-3/10-4, [177]), each comprising a display area (DA, [60]) comprising a plurality of pixels (LA1/LA2/LA3, [64]) and a peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]) around the display area (DA, [60]), each one of the plurality of display panel tiles (10-1/10-2/10-3/10-4, [177]) comprising: a display element (EL, [84]) in the display area (DA, [60]); a thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]) covering the display element (EL, [84]); a first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) arranged on the thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]), having an opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) provided in the display area (DA, [60]) along an edge of the display area (DA, [60]), and having an inclined surface in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]); a second insulating layer (BS1/BS3, [98], [111]) filling the opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) of the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]); and a film (20, [177]) on the inclined surface of the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]). Lee124 does not explicitly disclose a refractive film. Lee400 teaches, in at least figures 2A, 2B, 3C, and related text, the device comprising a refractive film (220/350, col. 4/ line 60-col. 5/ line 18), for the purpose of providing seam-concealing optical element to resulted in a tiled multi-panel display with substantially flat surface (col. 3/ lines 57-63). Lee124 and Lee400 are analogous art because they both are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee124 with the specified features of Lee400 because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Lee124 to have the refractive film, as taught by Lee400, for the purpose of providing seam-concealing optical element to resulted in a tiled multi-panel display with substantially flat surface (col. 3/ lines 57-63, Lee400). Regarding claim 19, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 11 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, a side surface of the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]) defining the opening (opening of BK1 for WLC1/LTU, figures) comprises a forward tapered slope. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0045124) in view of Lee (US 9,146,400), and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0137738). Regarding claim 10, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, the thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]) comprises a first encapsulation layer (PAS2, [91]), an organic encapsulation layer (OC2, [91]), and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (CAP1, [92]) sequentially stacked on the display element (EL, [84]), and wherein, in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]), the second inorganic encapsulation layer (CAP1, [92]) contacts the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]). Lee124 in view of Lee400 does not explicitly disclose a first inorganic encapsulation layer. Kim teaches, in at least figure 5 and related text, the device comprising a first inorganic encapsulation layer (TFE1, [108]), for the purpose of sealing at least a portion of each of the display area and non-display area ([166]) thereby protecting the device from external influences. Lee124, Lee400, and Kim are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee124 in view of Lee400 with the specified features of Kim because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Lee124 in view of Lee400 to have the first inorganic encapsulation layer, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of sealing at least a portion of each of the display area and non-display area ([166], Kim) thereby protecting the device from external influences. Regarding claim 20, Lee124 in view of Lee400 discloses the display device of claim 11 as described above. Lee124 further discloses, in at least figures 2-3, 9-10, and related text, the thin-film encapsulation layer (PAS2/OC2/CAP1, [91], [92]) comprises a first encapsulation layer (PAS2, [91]), an organic encapsulation layer (OC2, [91]), and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (CAP1, [92]) sequentially stacked on the display element (EL, [84]), and wherein, in the peripheral area (area of NDA, [60]), the second inorganic encapsulation layer (CAP1, [92]) contacts the first insulating layer (BK1, [95]). Lee124 in view of Lee400 does not explicitly disclose a first inorganic encapsulation layer. Kim teaches, in at least figure 5 and related text, the device comprising a first inorganic encapsulation layer (TFE1, [108]), for the purpose of sealing at least a portion of each of the display area and non-display area ([166]) thereby protecting the device from external influences. Lee124, Lee400, and Kim are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee124 in view of Lee400 with the specified features of Kim because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Lee124 in view of Lee400 to have the first inorganic encapsulation layer, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of sealing at least a portion of each of the display area and non-display area ([166], Kim) thereby protecting the device from external influences. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 5 that recite "an edge of each one of the cover windows has a curved surface" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 5. Claims 7-8 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 7 that recite "a first pixel of the first display panel tile and a second pixel of the second display panel tile arranged adjacent to each other in the first direction with the peripheral area therebetween emit light of a same wavelength range" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 7. Claim 9 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 9 that recite "a refractive index of the second insulating layer is greater than a refractive index of the first insulating layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 9. Claims 12-15 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 11 and 12 that recite "a first pixel of the first display panel tile and a second pixel of the second display panel tile arranged adjacent to each other in the first direction with the peripheral area therebetween emit light of a same wavelength range" in combination with other elements of the base claims 11 and 12. Claims 16-17 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 11 and 16 that recite "the refractive film is on an edge of the cover window" in combination with other elements of the base claims 11 and 16. Claim 18 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 11 and 18 that recite "a refractive index of the second insulating layer is greater than a refractive index of the first insulating layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 11 and 18. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONG-HO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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. /TONG-HO KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598777
LOW TEMPERATURE, HIGH GERMANIUM, HIGH BORON SIGE:B PEPI WITH TITANIUM SILICIDE CONTACTS FOR ULTRA-LOW PMOS CONTACT RESISTIVITY AND THERMAL STABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598764
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598787
FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR WITH DUAL LAYER ISOLATION STRUCTURE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598831
PIXEL SHIELDING USING AIR GAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598802
High-Voltage Tolerant Device and Detection Circuit
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
95%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+0.4%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 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