Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/604,744

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 14, 2024
Priority
Mar 15, 2023 — JP 2023-040515
Examiner
MILLER, ALEXANDER MICHAEL
Art Unit
4100
Tech Center
4100
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
6 granted / 7 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
58.0%
+18.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 7 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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 2 and 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species (B), Modification (C2-C4) and Embodiment (I), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 July 2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Modification C1 and Embodiment II in the reply filed on 15 July 2026 is acknowledged. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2024 and 10 September 2024 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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. Claims 1, 3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji Hyung Moon et al. (US 2011/0193123 A1; hereinafter “Moon”) in view of Hitoshi Murofushi et al. (US 2006/0076565 A1; hereinafter “Murofushi”). Regarding Claim 1, Moon teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (143, Fig. 17, para [0156] describes a second conductive layer 143 forming a first electrode); a second electrode that is disposed to face the first electrode and has a light-transmitting property (105, Fig. 17, para [0144] describes a current spreading layer 105 that may include a conductive transmitting oxide); a first semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type that is provided between the first electrode and the second electrode (130, Fig. 17, para [0038] describes a p-type semiconductor layer 130 provided between the first electrode 143 and the second electrode 105); a second semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type that is provided between the first semiconductor layer and the second electrode and is in contact with the second electrode (110, Fig. 17, para [0030] describes an n-type semiconductor layer 110 different from the first p-type conductivity and provided between the first semiconductor layer 130 and the second electrode 105 and is in contact with the second electrode 105); a light-emitting layer that is provided between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (120, Fig. 17, para [0029] describes an active layer 120 of a light emitting structure layer 135 provided between the first semiconductor layer 130 and the second semiconductor layer 110); and a light-transmitting portion provided on a side of the second electrode opposite to the second semiconductor layer (190 and 40, Fig. 17 and Fig. 18, para [0160] describes a resin layer 190 provided on a side of the second electrode 105 opposite to the second semiconductor layer 110 and a further molding member 40 including a resin material and a lens structure), wherein light generated in the light-emitting layer is emitted from a side of the second electrode (143 and 105, para [0156] describes wherein the first electrode 143 is a reflective electrode and the second electrode is a transmitting oxide layer resulting in the light generated in the light-emitting layer 120 being emitted from a side of the second electrode 105), a refractive index of the second electrode is lower than a refractive index of the second semiconductor layer (105 and 110, Fig. 17, para [0144] describes wherein the second electrode 105 may include a material having a refractive index lower than that of the second semiconductor layer 110), and a surface of the second semiconductor layer in contact with the second electrode has an uneven structure (112, 110 and 105, Fig. 17, para [0031] describes wherein the second semiconductor layer 110 may include a light extracting structure 112 at a top surface including a roughness at the top surface resulting in an uneven surface for the second semiconductor layer 110 and second electrode 105 at a contact surface between the two). Moon fails to explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the second electrode is higher than a refractive index of the light-transmitting portion. However, Murofushi teaches a similar light-emitting device wherein a refractive index of the second electrode (23, Fig. 5, para [0061] describes a transparent conductor film 23 comprised of a same indium tin oxide material as the second electrode 105 of Moon) is higher than a refractive index of the light-transmitting portion (25, Fig. 5, para [0070] describes a protection layer 25, comprised of a same epoxy resin material as the light-transmitting portion 40 and 190 of Moon, wherein para [0070] describes wherein the second electrode 23 has a higher refractive index than the light-transmitting portion 25 as shown by the inequality n4 (25) < n1 (23)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moon with Murofushi to further disclose a light-emitting device wherein a refractive index of a second electrode is higher than a refractive index of a light-transmitting portion in order to provide the advantage of suppressing the total reflection on the interface between adjacent layers thus improving light extraction efficiency in the light-emitting device (Murofushi, para [0075]). Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Moon and Murofushi teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1 further comprising a metal portion provided on a side surface of the light-transmitting portion (Moon, 171, Fig. 17, para [0064] describes a metal layer 171 disposed on a side surface of the light transmitting portion 190). Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Moon and Murofushi teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the uneven structure (Moon, 112 and 110, Fig. 17) overlaps the metal portion (Moon, 171, Fig. 17) as viewed in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the first semiconductor layer and the light-emitting layer are stacked (Moon, O, SD and OD, annotated Fig. 17 depicts wherein the uneven structure 112 of the first semiconductor layer 110 overlaps O with the metal portion 171 in a directional orthogonal OD to a direction in which the first semiconductor layer 110 and the light-emitting layer 120 are stacked SD). PNG media_image1.png 371 656 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Moon and Murofushi teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the light-transmitting portion opposite to the second electrode is a lens surface (Moon, 190 and 40, Fig. 17 and Fig. 18, para [0169] describes wherein a top surface of the light-transmitting portion 190 and 40 may include a lens structure wherein Fig. 18 depicts the light-transmitting portion 40 on an upper surface of the semiconductor device 100 of Fig. 17). Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Moon and Murofushi teaches a display device comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1 (Moon, Fig. 19 and Fig. 20, para [0173]-para [0175] describes wherein the light-emitting device according to claim 1 can be used in a lighting system such as a display device as shown in Fig. 19 and Fig. 20). Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Moon and Murofushi teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1 (Moon, Fig. 21, para [0173]-para [0175] describes wherein the light-emitting device according to claim 1 can be used in a lighting system such as an electronic apparatus depicted by an illumination device in Fig. 21). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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. /ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707951
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE, METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12672434
DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12660243
METHOD FOR FORMING AN ISLOLATION REGION IN A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE
4y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12593660
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.3%)
3y 5m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 7 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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