Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/626,723

DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Priority
Aug 02, 2022 — CN 202210922415.9 +1 more
Examiner
RAABE, CHRISTOPHER M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Visionox Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
561 granted / 824 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
842
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
59.7%
+19.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 824 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ni (CN111446381). With regard to claim 1, Ni discloses a display panel, comprising: an array substrate (21); an organic layer (23) arranged on a side of the array substrate; a pixel definition layer (24) arranged on a side of the organic layer away from the array substrate and having a slot (27) breaking therethrough; an encapsulation layer (26) arranged on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the array substrate, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises an organic encapsulation layer (262), and the organic encapsulation layer and the organic layer are communicated with each other through the slot (see, e.g., fig 4). With regard to claim 2, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer (261), the organic encapsulation layer (262) and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (263) stacked along a thickness direction of the display panel, and the first inorganic encapsulation layer is close to the organic layer relative to the second inorganic encapsulation layer (see fig. 4); an orthographic projection of the first inorganic encapsulation layer on the array substrate are staggered with an orthographic projection of the slot on the array substrate (see fig. 4). With regard to claim 6, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 2, wherein the display panel has a display area (A1) and a frame area (A2) adjacent to the display area, and the organic layer, the pixel definition layer and the encapsulation layer extend from the display area to the frame area (see fig. 4); in the frame area, the pixel definition layer is provided with a first slot (27) communicating the organic encapsulation layer (262) with the organic layer (23); the organic encapsulation layer (262) is partially filled into the first slot (See fig. 4). With regard to claim 7, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 6, wherein the organic layer comprises a planarization layer; or, the organic layer comprises a planarization layer and a hole layer stacked along the thickness direction of the display panel (see fig. 4). With regard to claim 8, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 6, wherein the first slot is arranged around the display area (see paragraph 30). With regard to claim 9, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 8, wherein the first slot in the frame area is of a continuous annular structure; or, the pixel definition layer comprises a plurality of first slots spaced apart in the frame area (see paragraph 30). With regard to claim 10, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 6, wherein an orthographic projection of the first inorganic encapsulation layer located in the frame area on the array substrate and an orthographic projection of the first slot on the array substrate are staggered (see fig. 4). With regard to claim 20, Ni discloses a display device comprising the display panel of claim 1. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni (as above), in view of Jeong et al. (USPN 2020/0075682). With regard to claim 3, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 1. While Ni does not disclose wherein the pixel definition layer comprises at least one inorganic material layer, Jeong et al. does disclose such a configuration in at least paragraphs 85,86 (e.g., SiNx). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Jeong et al. into the panel of Ni in order try to suit material availability. With regard to claim 4, Ni discloses the display panel of claim 2. While Ni does not disclose the electrode details of the display panel, Jeong et al. do disclose a first electrode layer (EL1) arranged on a side of the base layer (DP-CL) away from the array substrate, wherein the first electrode layer comprises a plurality of first electrode blocks insulated from each other (by PDL). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Jeong et al. into the panel of Ni in order to provide an addressable display. With regard to claim 5, Jeong et al. disclose the display panel of claim 4, wherein the pixel definition layer (PDL) has a pixel opening for exposing at least part of one of the first electrode blocks (see fig. 4). The obviousness of the incorporation of the concept of Jeong et al. into the panel of Ni was addressed in the rejection of claim 4. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-19 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: the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, a display panel having second slot in the display area as claimed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2016/0133874, 2022/0320466, 2016/0064686, 2015/0060806. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430. 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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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. /CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707852
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12707870
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12690351
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12690340
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12684941
LIGHT EXTRACTION SUBSTRATE AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING SAME
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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
68%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+27.5%)
2y 8m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 824 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