Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/562,885

DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Examiner
TURNER, BRIAN
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
614 granted / 741 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 741 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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. Election/Restrictions Claims 11-12, 14-15 and 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. The term “ gradually ” in claim s 1, 2, 4 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ gradually ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “gradually” is used in claims 1-2 in relation to changing capacitance values. The claims do not include any particular figure of merit, such as percent change or difference in units of measure (i.e. Farads), to distinguish between ‘gradual’ and ‘abrupt’. Therefore, any change in capacitance value could be considered ‘gradual’. Similarly, the term “gradually” is used in claims 4 and 6 in relation to an amount of electrode plate overlap. These claims do not particularly define the amount of change, either in percentage or raw magnitude, necessary to be considered ‘gradual’. Therefore, the term “gradually” renders claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention . For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the claims as follows: Claim 1: ‘… capacitance values change gradually in storage capacitors ( Cst ) of respective ones of the pixel driving circuits …” Claim 2: “… the capacitance values decrease gradually in the storage capacitors of the respective ones of the pixel driving circuits …” Claim 4: “… the total overlapping areas of the electrode plates decrease gradually in the storage capacitors …” Claim 6: “… the second overlapping areas and the third overlapping areas decrease gradually in the storage capacitors …’ 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. ( PG Pub. No. US 2020/0312934 A1) in view of Zhao et al. ( PG Pub. No. US 2020 / 0219443 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Bae teaches a display panel (¶ 0004), comprising a display region (DA) and a peripheral region (PA) surrounding the display region (¶ 0144 , fig. 18 ); wherein a binding region ( ¶ 01 67 : 150 and/or PCB ) is provided on a side of the peripheral region (fig. 20) ; the display region comprises a first display region ( ¶ 0 065 : A 2 ) and a second display region (A 1 ) adjacent to each other (fig. 17 among others : A2 adjacent to A1 ); a light transmittance of the second display region is greater than a light transmittance of the first display region (¶ 0 067 : region A2 includes a metal layer ML, such that light transmittance in region A1 higher than that of A2 ); the display panel further comprises a plurality of pixel driving circuits (¶ 01 71 : PC ) and data leads ( ¶ 0168: data line DL and/or connection line 151 ) for loading data voltages to the pixel driving circuits (¶ 0168 & fig s . 20 -21 : DL/151 loads data to PC ) ; and in the second display region, storage capacitors ( Cst ) of respective ones of the pixel driving circuits (are) sequentially connected to a same one of the data leads ( ¶ 0083, fig. 21: capacitor Cst of each respective PC connected to DL through transistor T2). Bae does not teach the capacitance values of the storage capacitors change . Zhao teaches a display panel ( Abstract ) including storage capacitors ( ¶ 0027: C1 ) of respective ones of the pixel driving circuits ( ¶ 0009: drive TFT ) sequentially connected to a same data lead (¶ 0026 & fig. 2: plurality of C1 of respective subpixels 10 connected in a row to same lead 20 and/or connected in a column to same lead 30), wherein the capacitance values of the storage capacitors change (¶¶ 0012-0013: capacitance value of the storage capacitor of each of the subpixels in the same row and/or column increases and/or decreases). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the storage capacitors of Bae with the value change of Zhao, as a means to improv e the uniformity of the display scree n (Zhao, ¶ 0017). Regarding claim 2 , Bae in view of Zhao teaches t he display panel according to claim 1, wherein, along a direction away from the binding region, the capacitance values decrease gradually in the storage capacitors of the respective ones of the pixel driving circuits located in the second display region and connected to the same one of the data leads (Bae, fig. 20: along a direction away from 150, Cst in each pixel ‘P’, as modified with the changing capacitance values of Zhao, decrease) . Regarding claim 3 , Bae in view of Zhao teaches t he display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises scanning leads (Bae, ¶ 0166: scan line SL) for loading scanning signals to the pixel driving circuits (Bae, fig. 20: SL connected to pixel circuit PC ) ; and in the second display region, capacitance values are the same in storage capacitors of respective ones of the pixel driving circuits sequentially connected to a same one of the scanning leads (Zhao, ¶ 0031 & fig. 2: at least outermost storage capacitors C1 connected to scanning lines 20 include same capacitance values) . Regarding claim 8 , Bae in view of Zhao teaches t he display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel further comprises pixel driving regions for providing the pixel driving circuits (Bae, ¶ 0171 & fig s . 20 -21 : pixels P provide pixel circuits PC ) ; and an area of a pixel driving region in the second display region is smaller than an area of a pixel driving region in the first display region (Bae, fig. 17 : area A2 has additional layer ML, such that A1 has a smaller vertical dimension and resulting area than A2) . Regarding claim 9 , Bae in view of Zhao teaches t he display panel according to claim 8, wherein the display panel further comprises signal lines ( Bae, ¶ 0167: PL) for connecting adjacent ones of the pixel driving circuits ( Bae, figs. 20-21: PL connects pixel circuits PC of adjacent pixels P) ; and in the second display region, a material of a part of the signal lines outside the pixel driving region is a transparent conductive material (¶ 0096: pixel electrodes, including portions outside of PC regions, include transparent material such as ITO, IZO, ZnO , andIn 2 O 3 ). Regarding claim 10 , Bae in view of Zhao teaches t he display panel according to claim 8, wherein the display panel further comprises a base substrate (Bae, ¶ 0065: 100) , a semiconductor layer (Bae, ¶ 0068: Act1/Act2) , a first gate layer (Bae, ¶ 0077: G1) , a second gate layer (Bae, ¶ 0077: G 2 ), a first source-drain metal layer (Bae, ¶ 0092: SE1) , a second source-drain metal layer (Bae, ¶ 0092: D E 1 ) and a pixel electrode layer (Bae, ¶ 0095: 221) sequentially stacked (Bae, fig. 7) ; the display panel further comprises a transparent wiring layer (Bae, ¶ 0094 & fig. 7: contact of 221 formed in CNT3 of layer 209) located between any two adjacent ones of the semiconductor layer, the first gate layer, the second gate layer, the first source-drain metal layer, the second source-drain metal layer and the pixel electrode layer (Bae, fig. 7: CNT3 located between at least 221 and SE1/DE1) ; and in the second display region, a part of the signal lines outside the pixel driving region is located in the transparent wiring layer (Bae, ¶ 0173 & fig. 20) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art fails to teach or clearly suggest the limitations stating: “ odd-numbered layers of the electrode plates are electrically connected to each other, and even-numbered layers of the electrode plates are electrically connected to each other; two adjacent layers of the electrode plates overlap and are electrically insulated with each other; a total overlapping area of the electrode plates of the storage capacitor is equal to a sum of overlapping areas between any two adjacent layers of the electrode plates ” as recited in claim 4 . Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4, and are allowable for the same reasons. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al. ( US 2006 / 0273994 A1 ) teaches a display panel with decreasing storage capacitor values across a pixel array (¶ 0023). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5411 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eva Montalvo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3829 . 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. /BRIAN TURNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604732
Power Electronics Carrier
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604561
MIXED COLOR LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598791
STORAGE DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588457
Die Bonding Apparatus and Manufacturing Method for Semiconductor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581682
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 741 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