Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/565,256

DISPLAY PANEL, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
MALSAWMA, LALRINFAMKIM HMAR
Art Unit
2892
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
971 granted / 1076 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1076 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “DISPLAY PANEL WITH HOLLOWED-OUT TRANSPARENT HEAT INSULATING LAYER AND METHOD OF MANUFACUTING THE SAME”. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0161579 A1; hereinafter, “Kim”). Regarding claims 1 and 12-14: re claim 1, Kim discloses a display panel, comprising: (NOTE: a colon is required here) a driving substrate 110/130 (Fig. 12 and [0067]; a pixel definition layer 150 (Fig. 12 and [0067]) arranged on one side of the driving substrate, wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of first pixel partitions 150 (Fig. 12) and arranged in an array form (Fig. 28 and [0274]), and a plurality of first pixel regions LA1, LA2, LA3 (Fig. 12 and [0053]) are enclosed by adjacent first pixel partitions 150; a plurality of light-emitting elements ED1, ED2, ED3 (Fig. 12 and [0067]) arranged in corresponding first pixel regions; a first encapsulation layer 171 (Fig. 12 and [0094]) covering the pixel definition layer 150 and the plurality of light-emitting elements ED1/ED2/ED3; a transparent heat insulation layer 173 (Fig. 12 and [0096], wherein layer 173 is a resin, which generally have low thermal conductivity) arranged on a side of the first encapsulation layer 171 away from the driving substrate 110/130, wherein an orthographic projection of the transparent heat insulation layer 173 onto the driving substrate 110/130 at least covers an orthographic projection of each first pixel region LA1, LA2, LA3 onto the driving substrate; a pixel isolation structure 70b (Fig. 12 and [0061]) arranged on a side of the transparent heat insulation layer 173 away from the driving substrate 110/130, wherein the pixel isolation structure 70b comprises a plurality of second pixel partitions 70b (Fig. 12) arranged in an array form, a plurality of second pixel regions 70a (Fig. 12 and [0061]) are enclosed by adjacent second pixel partitions 70b, and the second pixel regions 70a are arranged corresponding to the first pixel regions LA1/LA2/LA3; and a color conversion layer 341/343/345 (Fig. 12 and [0099]) comprising a plurality of color conversion parts 341, 343 [0099] arranged in corresponding second pixel regions 70a (in a plan view); re claim 12, the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising: a second encapsulation layer PS1 (Fig. 12 and [0099]) covering the color conversion layer 341/343/345 and the pixel isolation structure 70b, a plurality of color filter parts 331, 333 (Fig. 12 and [0099]) arranged on a side of the second encapsulation layer PS1 away from the driving substrate 110/130 and corresponding to the color conversion parts 341, 343, and a second light shielding layer 320_2 (Fig. 12 and [0197]) arranged between the color filter parts 331, 333, 335; re claim 13, A display device, comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (abstract); and re claim 13, the display device according to claim 13, further comprising a cover plate 310 (Fig. 12 and [0099]) covering the display panel. Therefore, Kim anticipates claims 1 and 12-14. Regarding claims 15-19: Initially, the current claims depend from claim 1, wherein claim 1 is directed to a product, and the current claims contain limitations directed to process steps for acquiring the product of claim 1. Accordingly, the current claims are deemed to be product-by-process limitations that are not patentable as a product. Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935). Therefore, the product of claims 15-19 is deemed to be anticipated by Kim, no matter how actually made. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-11 and 20 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: Claims 2-11 and 20 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations in claim 2 (when combined with claim 1), and claims 3-11 and 20 depend from claim 2. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 disclose display devices/panels with heat insulating layers and/or nanoparticles, wherein the display devices/panels have some similarity to the display device/panel of the current invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM). 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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. /LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598877
STRETCHABLE DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593570
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588439
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE WITH SPACER ON PHOTORESIST LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581816
Display Substrate and Display Apparatus with Fanout Connection Block
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581820
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, MANUFACTURING METHOD AND DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING DISPLAY UNITS ON CONNECTED ISLANDS
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
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1076 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