Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/581,702

DISPLAY PANEL INSPECTION DEVICE AND DISPLAY PANEL INSPECTION METHOD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 20, 2024
Examiner
FENWICK, WARREN K
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
567 granted / 633 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 633 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance. The primary reason for allowance of claims 1 - 8 is the prior art made of record neither shows or discloses the claim language found in claim 1, for a display panel inspection device, comprising: a base plate including: a seating area that seats a display panel; and a peripheral area adjacent to the seating area. Most notably, for a display panel inspection device, further comprising: a jig disposed in the peripheral area of the base plate, having a hollow shape, and including a body defining first grooves recessed from an inside to an outside of a corner, in combination with all of the other claim limitations presented, in total. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." 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. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 11, the limitation “an opposite direction that is opposite to the direction” in lines 3 and 4, comprises a contradictory indefinite limitation. Appropriate correction is required. 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 9 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20240302258 A1). The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. PNG media_image1.png 698 584 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 514 646 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses a display panel inspection method (performed on an (inspection device, Figure 1, element 1) (paragraphs 50 - 52, all lines, therein) , comprising: seating a display panel (Figure 1, element DS) in a seating area (paragraphs 35 and 63, all lines, therein) of a base plate (support, Figure 12, element 121) (paragraph 88, lines 1 – 3) including the seating area and a peripheral area (Figure 17, element DPA) (paragraph 110, lines 1 – 3) adjacent to the seating area; moving the base plate, a jig (support, Figure 12, element 121) (paragraph 88, lines 1 – 3) disposed in the peripheral area of the base plate and having a hollow shape, and the display panel in a direction (paragraphs 55 - 58, all lines, therein); and colliding the display panel with the jig (paragraphs 53 - 55, all lines, therein). Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the display panel inspection method, wherein the colliding of the display panel with the jig includes[[:]] stopping movement of the base plate and the jig (paragraph 62, all lines, therein). Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the display panel inspection method, wherein the colliding of the display panel with the jig includes[[:]] moving the base plate and the jig in an opposite direction that is opposite to the direction (paragraph 56, all lines, therein). Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the display panel inspection method, further comprising: calculating an amount of impact applied to the display panel (paragraph 53, all lines, therein), wherein in the calculating of the amount of impact applied to the display panel, the moving of the base plate, the jig and the display panel, and the colliding of the display panel with the jig are repeatedly performed (paragraphs 55 - 58, all lines, therein). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13 – 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. Regarding claim 12, and claim 13 which depends therefrom, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the display panel inspection method, further comprising: calculating an amount of impact applied to the display panel, wherein in the calculating of the amount of impact applied to the display panel, the moving of the base plate, the jig and the display panel, and the colliding of the display panel with the jig are repeatedly performed. Regarding claim 14, and claims 15 - 19 which depend therefrom, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the display panel inspection method, wherein the jig includes a body defining first grooves recessed from an inside to an outside of a corner and second grooves recessed from an inner edge to an outer edge. Regarding claim 20, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the display panel inspection method, further comprising: rotating the base plate and the jig with respect to a rotation axis passing through a center of the base plate and extending in a thickness direction of the base plate. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARREN K FENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3040. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 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, Walter L. Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 WKF
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601412
DURABILITY TESTING APPARATUS FOR WATER DRAINAGE FLAP, AND TESTING METHOD USING THE DURABILITY TESTING APPARATUS FOR WATER DRAINAGE FLAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596179
SENSOR MOUNTING ASSEMBLY IN VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590869
SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF AT LEAST ONE BEARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581193
IMAGING APPARATUS, OPERATION METHOD OF IMAGING APPARATUS, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574642
COMPACT FOLDED TELE CAMERAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
90%
With Interview (+0.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 633 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