Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/562,086

DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
FARMER, EMILY NICOLE
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
27 granted / 29 resolved
+25.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
53
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-18 are pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2021-089308 for 05/27/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: OLED STRUCTURE FOR TOUCHSCREEN PANEL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THEREOF Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The examiner requests that due to the volume of IDS documents submitted, the most relevant documents be identified for the record. 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. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada et al. (WO 2020/0053692A1, US PGPub 2021/0327979 is the US equivalent and is cited for convenience; herein known as Kamada) in view of Yamazaki et al. (WO 2020/021399A1, US PGPub 2021/0296409 is the US equivalent and is cited for convenience; herein known as Yamazaki). Regarding claim 1, Kamada teaches (Fig. 2A) a display apparatus comprising: a first light-emitting element (190, [0080]), a light-receiving element (110, [0080]), and a first coloring layer, wherein the first light-emitting element comprises: a first pixel electrode (191, [0083]), a first organic layer (193, [0086]) over the first pixel electrode, and a common electrode (115, [0093]) over the first organic layer, wherein the light-receiving element comprises: a second pixel electrode (111, [0093]), a second organic layer (113, [0086]) over the second pixel electrode, and the common electrode (115, [0093]) over the second organic layer, wherein the first organic layer comprises: a first light-emitting layer ([0086]), wherein the second organic layer comprises a photoelectric conversion layer ([0093]), Kamada does not explicitly teach a first coloring layer, wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element, nor and wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer. Yamazaki teaches (Fig. 6A) a first coloring layer (CF, [0108]) wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element (170, [0108]). Because Kamada and Yamazaki are both directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada and Yamazaki to include a first coloring layer, wherein the first coloring layer overlaps with the first light-emitting element in order to achieve full-color display (Yamazaki, [0109]). Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer ([0123]). Kamada further teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer ([0123]). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Kamada and Yamazaki to include wherein the photoelectric conversion layer has sensitivity in a wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer in order to enable a highly sensitive sensor with selectively inhibited light ([0123]). Regarding claim 3, Kamada in view Yamazaki teaches (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a resin layer, wherein the resin layer (216, [0092]) is positioned in a region between the first light-emitting element (190, [0080]) and the light-receiving element (110, [0080]), and wherein a side surface of the first organic layer and a side surface of the second organic layer face (See Figure 2A) each other with the resin layer therebetween (See Figure 2A). Regarding claim 5, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches (Kamada, not pictured) the display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a second light-emitting element ([0009]); and wherein the second light-emitting element comprises: a third pixel electrode ([0009]); a third organic layer over the third pixel electrode ([0009]); and the common electrode ([0009]) over the third organic layer, wherein the third organic layer comprises a second light-emitting layer ([0009]), Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach a second coloring layer, wherein the second coloring layer is overlaps with the second light-emitting element, and wherein a wavelength range of light passing through the second coloring layer is different from the wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer. At the time of filing, there is a recognized need to provide subpixels emitting different colors in OLED devices. Yamazaki teaches a coloring layer disposed over a light-emitting element for the purpose of providing a finite number of options of either a red, green, or blue subpixel ([0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Kamada and Yamazaki to include a second coloring layer, wherein the second coloring layer is overlaps with the second light-emitting element, and wherein a wavelength range of light passing through the second coloring layer is different from the wavelength range of light passing through the first coloring layer as a known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success of providing two light-emitting subpixels with different colors. See MPEP 2143.I(E). Regarding claim 7, Kamada in view of Yamazaki further teaches (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first organic layer comprises: a first light-emitting unit (112, [0092]) over the first pixel electrode (191); a first charge-generation layer (193, [0090]) over the first light-emitting unit; and a second light-emitting unit (114, [0092]) over the first charge-generation layer, wherein the third organic layer comprises: a third light-emitting unit (112, [0092]) over the third pixel electrode; a second charge-generation layer (not pictured, [0009]) over the third light-emitting unit; and a fourth light-emitting unit (114, [0092]) over the second charge-generation layer. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US PGPub 2020/0057330; herein known as Yamazaki2). Regarding claim 2, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a region in which a distance between the first organic layer and the second organic layer is less than or equal to 8 μm. Yamazaki2 teaches wherein the pitch between two pixels is ideally in a range of 4-100μm where pitch is a result-effective variable of impacting screen resolution ([0170]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein which a distance between the first organic layer and the second organic layer is less than or equal to 8 μm in order to improve device resolution (Yamazaki, [0170]). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akiyama et al. (US PGPub 2013/0075761; herein known as Akiyama). Regarding claim 4, Kamada in view of Yamazaki (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the display apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a resin layer (216, [0092]); and wherein the resin layer is positioned between the first light-emitting element (190) and the light-receiving element (110). Kamada in view of Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an insulating layer wherein the insulating layer is in contact with a side surface of the first organic layer and side surface of the second organic layer. Akiyama teaches an insulating layer (202, defined as an insulating film) wherein the insulating layer is in contact with a side surface of the first organic layer (205, [0051]) and side surface of the second organic layer (305, [0050]). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Akiyama are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Yamazaki and of Akiyama to include an insulating layer wherein the insulating layer is in contact with a side surface of the first organic layer and side surface of the second organic layer in order to define and separate emitting and receiving regions (Akiyama, [0048]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yamazaki2. Regarding claim 6, Kamada in view of Yamazaki teaches the display apparatus according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material. Yamazaki2 teaches wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material ([0133]). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Yamazaki2 are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Yamazaki and of Yamazaki2 to include wherein the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer comprise a same material in order to simplify formation process of the light-emitting elements (Yamazaki2, [0133]). Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki, and further in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 2020/0274110; herein known as Chen). Regarding claim 9, Kamada teaches (Fig. 2A) a method for manufacturing a display apparatus, comprising the steps of: forming a first pixel electrode (191, [0083]) and a second pixel electrode (111, [0093]); forming a first organic film (112, [0093]) to cover the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode; forming a second organic film (114, [0093]) to cover the first organic layer and the second pixel electrode; wherein the first organic layer comprises a light-emitting organic compound, and wherein the second organic layer comprises a photoelectric conversion material. Kamada does not explicitly teach forming a first resist mask over the first sacrificial film to overlap with the first pixel electrode; processing the first sacrificial film into a first sacrificial layer having an island shape using the first resist mask; processing the first organic film into a first organic layer having an island shape using the first sacrificial layer as a mask; forming a second organic film to cover the first organic layer and the second pixel electrode; forming a second sacrificial film over the second organic film; forming a second resist mask over the second sacrificial film to overlap with the second pixel electrode; processing the second sacrificial film into a second sacrificial layer having an island shape using the second resist mask; processing the second organic film into a second organic layer having an island shape using the second sacrificial layer as a mask. Chen teaches (Figs. 5J to 5M) forming a first sacrificial film (50, [0040]) over the first organic film; forming a first resist mask (50P, [0040]) over the first sacrificial film to overlap with the first pixel electrode ([0040]); processing the first sacrificial film into a first sacrificial layer having an island shape using the first resist mask ([0041], opening is formed in sacrificial layer) processing the first organic film into a first organic layer having an island shape using the first sacrificial layer as a mask ([0042]); Chen further teaches wherein this process can be repeated on additional elements of a device ([0046]). Because Kamada and Chen are both directed toward methods of manufacturing OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada and of Chen in order to enable a highly selective etch of the organic layer of the device. Kamada in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the organic layer has an island shape. Yamazaki teaches wherein the organic layer has an island shape ([0252]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Chen and of Yamazaki to include wherein the organic layer has an island shape for use in flexible OLED substrates. Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen does not explicitly teach forming a coloring layer over the first organic layer to overlap with the first organic layer. Yamazaki teaches (Fig. 3) forming a coloring layer (CF, [0108]) over the first organic layer to overlap with the first organic layer (112, [0093]). Because Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki are both directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki to include forming a coloring layer over the first organic layer to overlap with the first organic layer. in order to achieve full-color display (Yamazaki, [0109]). Regarding claim 10, Kamada teaches (Fig. 2A) a method for manufacturing a display apparatus, comprising the steps of: forming a first pixel electrode (191, [0083]) and a second pixel electrode (111, [0093]); forming a first organic film (112, [0093]) to cover the first pixel electrode and the second pixel electrode; wherein the first organic layer comprises a photoelectric conversion material [(0093]), and wherein the second organic layer comprises a light-emitting organic compound [(0093)]. Kamada does not explicitly teach forming a first resist mask over the first sacrificial film to overlap with the first pixel electrode; processing the first sacrificial film into a first sacrificial layer having an island shape using the first resist mask; processing the first organic film into a first organic layer having an island shape using the first sacrificial layer as a mask; forming a second organic film to cover the first organic layer and the second pixel electrode; forming a second sacrificial film over the second organic film; forming a second resist mask over the second sacrificial film to overlap with the second pixel electrode; processing the second sacrificial film into a second sacrificial layer having an island shape using the second resist mask; processing the second organic film into a second organic layer having an island shape using the second sacrificial layer as a mask. Chen teaches (Figs. 5J to 5M) forming a first sacrificial film (50, [0040]) over the first organic film; forming a first resist mask (50P, [0040]) over the first sacrificial film to overlap with the first pixel electrode ([0040]); processing the first sacrificial film into a first sacrificial layer having an island shape using the first resist mask ([0041], opening is formed in sacrificial layer), processing the first organic film into a first organic layer having an island shape using the first sacrificial layer as a mask ([0042]); Chen further teaches wherein this process can be repeated on additional elements of a device ([0046]). Because Kamada and Chen are both directed toward methods of manufacturing OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada and of Chen in order to enable a highly selective etch of the organic layer of the device. forming a common electrode (115, [0093]) over the first organic layer and the second organic layer. Kamada in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the organic layer has an island shape. Yamazaki teaches wherein the organic layer has an island shape ([0252]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Chen and of Yamazaki to include wherein the organic layer has an island shape for use in flexible OLED substrates. Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki does not explicitly teach forming a coloring layer over the common electrode to overlap with the second organic layer. Yamazaki further teaches forming a coloring layer (CF, [0108]) over the common electrode to overlap with the second organic layer. Because Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki are both directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki to include forming a coloring layer over the common electrode to overlap with the second organic layer in order to achieve full-color display (Yamazaki, [0109]). Claims 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008251270A; herein known as Hashimoto, translation provided for reference). Regarding claim 11, Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki teaches the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 9, but does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of: forming an insulating film to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed. Hashimoto teaches (Fig. 1b) forming an insulating film (7, [0034]) to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed (insulating film is over both layers, see figure). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen and Hashimoto are directed toward OLED manufacture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings to include forming an insulating film to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed in order to protect the organic layers during subsequent processing (Hashimoto, [0034]). Regarding claim 12, Kamada in view of Chen, Yamazaki, and Hashimoto teaches the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 11, wherein the insulating film is formed by an atomic layer deposition method. Kamada in view of Chen, Yamazaki, and Hashimoto teach an insulating film formed of a metal oxide (Hashimoto, 0117). The examiner takes official notice that atomic layer deposition is a known method of deposition of metal oxide films, with the benefit of creating highly conformal coatings on semiconductor structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the insulating film is formed by an atomic layer deposition method for that benefit. Regarding claim 13, Kamada in view of Yamazaki, Chen, and Hashimoto teaches (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 11, further comprising the step of: forming a resin layer (216, [0126]) over the insulating film in a region between the first organic layer (193) and the second organic layer (113). Regarding claim 15, Kamada in view of Chen and Yamazaki teaches the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 10, but does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of: forming an insulating film to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed. Hashimoto teaches (Fig. 1b) forming an insulating film (7, [0034]) to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed (insulating film is over both layers, see figure). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen and Hashimoto are directed toward OLED manufacture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings to include forming an insulating film to cover the first organic layer and the second organic layer after the second organic layer is formed in order to protect the organic layers during subsequent processing (Hashimoto, [0034]). Regarding claim 16, Kamada in view of Chen, Yamazaki, and Hashimoto teaches the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 15, wherein the insulating film is formed by an atomic layer deposition method. Kamada in view of Chen, Yamazaki, and Hashimoto teach an insulating film formed of a metal oxide (Hashimoto, 0117). The examiner takes official notice that atomic layer deposition is a known method of deposition of metal oxide films, with the benefit of creating highly conformal coatings on semiconductor structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the insulating film is formed by an atomic layer deposition method for that benefit. Regarding claim 17, Kamada in view of Yamazaki, Chen, and Hashimoto teaches (Kamada, Fig. 2A) the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 15, further comprising the step of: forming a resin layer (216, [0126]) over the insulating film in a region between the first organic layer (193) and the second organic layer (113). Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada in view of Yamazaki, Chen, and Hashimoto as applied to claims 13 and 17 above, and further in view of Yamazaki2. Regarding claim 14, Kamada in view of Yamazaki, Chen, and Hashimoto teach the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer. Yamazaki2 teaches wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer ([0323]). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen and Yamazaki2 are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine their teachings to include wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer to allow for processing by light exposure and development treatment (Yamazaki2, [0323]). Regarding claim 18, Kamada in view of Yamazaki, Chen, and Hashimoto teach the method for manufacturing a display apparatus, according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer. Yamazaki2 teaches wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer ([0323]). Because Kamada in view of Yamazaki and Chen and Yamazaki2 are directed toward OLED devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine their teachings to include wherein a photosensitive organic resin is used for the resin layer to allow for processing by light exposure and development treatment (Yamazaki2, [0323]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY N FARMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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. /EMILY FARMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604744
INTEGRATION OF GLASS CORE INTO ELECTRONIC SUBSTRATES FOR FINE PITCH DIE TILING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604571
LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH LATTICE MATCHING SIDEWALL PASSIVATION LAYER AND METHOD OF MAKING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593503
PILLAR-SHAPED SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581874
SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564019
WAFER FABRICATION PROCESS AND DEVICES WITH EXTENDED PERIPHERAL DIE AREA
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
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 29 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