Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/628,734

DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 07, 2024
Priority
Jul 26, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0097437
Examiner
HENRY, CALEB E
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
1082 granted / 1248 resolved
+26.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1285
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
71.9%
+31.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1248 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/628,734 CTNF 85158 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged. Specification 06-11 AIA 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20220102468) . Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device comprising: a substrate ( fig. 12: 100 ) which includes a first side surface adjacent to an upper surface and a second side surface adjacent to a lower surface, and in which an opening ( fig. 12: 100OP ) surrounded by the second side surface is defined; a pad clad ( fig. 12: 150 + 62 ) surrounded by the first side surface of the substrate and including a pad contact hole ( please see space between 150 and 62 ); a pad ( fig. 8: 350 ) disposed on the pad clad and inserted into the pad contact hole; a fan-out line ( fig. 13: 51 ) disposed on the pad and electrically connected to the pad; a transistor ( fig. 13: 130 ) electrically connected to the fan-out line; and a flexible film disposed under the substrate and including a lead electrode ( fig. 12: 50 ) inserted into the opening of the substrate and in contact with the pad ( please see fig. 14 and 15 which show 50 in this area ). Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above, namely the addition of element 350. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor, as well as adding structural integrity to the package. Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the pad clad is flush with the upper surface of the substrate (please see fig. 4). Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a display device of claim 1, wherein the pad clad includes at least one of polyimide, silicon nitride (SiNx), and silicon (Si) (par. 91). Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a display area which displays images; and a non-display area surrounding the display area, wherein the pad and the flexible film are disposed in the display area (please see fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a display area which displays images; a non-display area surrounding the display area; and a display driver which is disposed on the flexible film and applies a data voltage to the transistor, wherein the pad and the fan-out line are disposed in the non-display area, and the display driver is disposed in the display area (fig. 77 and fig. 1). Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a display device of claim 1, further comprising: a transistor layer comprising the transistor; a light-emitting element layer disposed on the transistor layer and comprising a light-emitting element; and an encapsulation layer covering upper and side surfaces of the light-emitting element layer (please see fig. 12) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 2 is 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. Claim 3 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2. Claim 9 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 6 is 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. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 7 is 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. Claim 8 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 13 is 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (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. /CALEB E HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/628,734 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/628,734 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/628,734 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/628,734 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684934
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677421
MEMORY STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MAKING
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672521
METHOD OF FABRICATING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE BASED ON A MEASURED MISALIGNMENT VALUE
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12672481
Display Device Including A Gap Between Light-Emitting Elements, Method For Manufacturing The Display Device, and Electronic Device
2y 12m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12672289
MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING WORD LINE CONTACT STRIPS AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 30, 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
87%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+6.1%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1248 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