Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/664,067

DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING AN OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR PATTERN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 14, 2024
Examiner
LEE, KYOUNG
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
912 granted / 979 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1002
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 979 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-7, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MOON et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0155000 A1) and CHOI et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0212115 A1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOON et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0155000 A1) in view of CHOI et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0212115 A1). [Re claim 1] MOON discloses the display apparatus comprising; a substrate including a display area (AA) and a non-display area (NA) adjacent to the display area; a first thin film transistor (T2) disposed on the display area, a first semiconductor pattern (A2) of the first thin film transistor including an oxide semiconductor; a second thin film transistor (T1) disposed on the display area, a second semiconductor pattern (A1) of the second thin film transistor including a material different from the first semiconductor pattern; and a first conductive line (VSS) disposed on the non-display area, a first portion of the first conductive line having a round shape (see figure 1, 10 and paragraph [0045]-[0055], [0137]). MOON does not disclose the device wherein the first conductive line disposed on the non-display area, the first conductive line including a side surface toward the display area, wherein the side surface of the first conductive line includes a first portion of the first conductive line having a round shape with a curvature. CHOI discloses the device wherein the first conductive line (70) disposed on the non-display area (NDA), the first conductive line (70) including a side surface toward the display area (DA), wherein the side surface of the first conductive line includes a first portion (corner portion of 70) of the first conductive line having a round shape with a curvature (see figure 3, 7 and paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to the effective filing date of the instant application to have a side surface of the first conductive line having a round shape with a curvature in the device of MOON in order to create smooth round corner edge of the device. [Re claim 2] CHOI also discloses the display apparatus wherein the first portion of the first conductive line (70) has a convex shape with respect to the display area (see figure 3). [Re claim 3] CHOI also discloses the display apparatus wherein the first conductive line includes a second portion (straight portion of 70) having a different shape from the first portion (corner portion of 70) (see figure 3). [Re claim 4] CHOI also discloses the display apparatus wherein a distance between the second portion (straight portion of 70) of the first conductive line and the display area is same as a distance between the first portion (corner portion of 70) of the first conductive line and the display area (see figure 3). [Re claim 5] MOON also discloses the display apparatus further comprising a second conductive line (DL) disposed on the non-display area, wherein the second conductive line extends parallel to the first conductive line (see figure 10). [Re claim 6] MOON also discloses the display apparatus wherein the second conductive line (DL) includes a curved portion corresponding to the first portion of the first conductive line (see figure 10). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7-8 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 9-20 allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 9 allowable because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the second semiconductor pattern is disposed on a different layer as the first semiconductor pattern, and wherein the first conductive line includes a first portion and a second portion having a different width from the first portion. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 10-20 depend from claim 9 so they are allowable for the same reason. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1982. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 6pm. 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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. /KYOUNG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598893
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599023
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593601
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581836
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581819
DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 979 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