Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/735,801

DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING WIRE GRID POLARIZATION LAYER

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Examiner
VU, PHU
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
848 granted / 994 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1024
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.3%
+17.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 994 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 with respect to claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/16/25, with respect to claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of amended claims 16-20 has been withdrawn. 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. Claim(s) 1, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho US 2018/0157086. Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a display device comprising: a display layer (fig. 2 Liquid crystal layer LCL); a quantum-dot layer (color conversion layer CCL) disposed on the display layer and comprising a color conversion layer including a quantum-dot (fig. 5B illuminant EP-G, EP-R) and a scatterer(scattering particle OP); and an upper layer disposed above the quantum-dot layer and comprising a phase retardation layer (phase retarder RC) and a wire grid polarization layer (linear polarizer PP wire grid [0123]) disposed on the phase retardation layer. Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a first sub-pixel forming a first sub-pixel area where light of a first color is provided (fig. 5B third color conversion part CCF3), a second sub-pixel forming a second sub-pixel area (second color conversion part CCF2) where light of a second color is provided, and a third sub-pixel (first color conversion part CCF1) forming a third sub-pixel area where light of a third color is provided, wherein the color conversion layer comprises: a first color conversion layer disposed in the first sub-pixel area, and a second color conversion layer disposed in the second sub-pixel area, and the quantum-dot layer further comprises a scattering layer (OP) disposed in the third sub-pixel area. Regarding claim 13, Cho teaches the first color conversion layer, the second color conversion layer, and the scattering layer each include a scatterer (OP). 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. Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 2018/0157086 in view of Shen US 2019/0094435. Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches the upper layer further comprises an upper substrate (fig. 2 first substrate sub1) disposed on the wire grid polarization layer (first polarizer PO1) , the wire grid polarization layer comprises wire grid pattern layers disposed below the upper substrate. Cho does not explicitly teach the wire grid pattern layers each comprise: a first layer disposed on the upper substrate; a second layer disposed on the first layer; and a third layer disposed on the second layer, and the first layer and the second layer include different metal materials from each other. Shen teaches a wire grid polarizer with wire grid pattern layers each comprise: a first layer disposed (fig. 12 first layer 3011) on the upper substrate (another substrate 120); a second layer (another wire grid 201) disposed on the first layer; and a third layer(second layer 3012) disposed on the second layer, and the first layer and the second layer include different metal materials from each other which are not easily damaged preventing lowering of extinction ratio [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho in view of Shen to provide durability thus preventing lowering of extinction ratios. Regarding claim 3, Shen teaches the first layer absorbs at least a portion of light incident to the first layer [0020], and the second layer reflects at least a portion of light incident to the second layer [0020]. Regarding claim 4, Shen teaches wherein the first layer includes molybdenum tantalum oxide (MoTaO.sub.x), and the second layer includes aluminum (Al) [0020]. Regarding claim 5, Shen teaches a thickness of the first layer is in a range of about 350 nm to about 550 nm [0024]. Regarding claim 6, Shen teaches the first layer (3011) is in contact with the upper substrate (120). Regarding claim 7, Shen teaches the upper substrate includes a glass material [0030]. Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches the phase retardation layer includes a λ/4 phase retardation film [0121]. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 2018/0157086 in view of Shen US 2019/0094435 and further in view of Lee US 2022/0107452. Regarding claim 9, Cho and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 9 except the phase retardation layer and the wire grid polarization layer are directly adjacent to each other. Lee teaches a position of a phase retardation layer (fig. 2A quarter wave plate 260) and the wire grid polarization layer (NGWP 230) are directly adjacent to each other. This is considered a matter of obvious design choice as WGP Lee discloses the wire grid polarizer can be formed in multiple positions. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 2018/0157086 in view of Shen US 2019/0094435 in view of Park US 2023/0215997. Regarding claim 10, Cho and Shen teach all the limitations of claim 10 except the upper layer further comprises an optical layer disposed on the quantum-dot layer and a color filter layer disposed on the optical layer, and the optical layer and the color filter layer are directly adjacent to each other to form an interface. Park teaches upper layer further comprises an optical layer (fig. 5 optical layer OL)disposed on the quantum-dot layer(color conversion layer CCL) and a color filter layer disposed on the optical layer, and the optical layer and the color filter layer (color filter layer CFL) are directly adjacent to each other to form an interface to recycle light improving efficiency [0154]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho in view of Park to improve efficiency. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 2018/0157086 in view of Shen US 2019/0094435 in view of Park US 2023/0215997 and further in view of Yang US 2022/0302419. Regarding claim 11, Park teaches a refractive index of the optical layer is smaller than a refractive index of the color conversion layer [0154]. Cho, Shen and Park do not teach a refractive index of the optical layer is greater than a refractive index of the color filter layer. Yang teaches a color filter with refractive index of 1.4 to 1.7 [0083] and a optical layer (antireflective member LRL1) greater than that of the color filter [0092]. This is considered achievable through routine optimization. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a refractive index of the optical layer is greater than a refractive index of the color filter layer through routine optimization. Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 2018/0157086 in view of Hong US 2007/0296896. Regarding claim 14, Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 14 except a light controlling layer disposed on the upper layer, wherein the light controlling layer comprises: a variable light transmission layer including liquid crystal molecules; and a lens layer disposed on the variable light transmission layer and comprising lenses and a peripheral layer disposed on the lenses. Hong teaches a light controlling layer (fig. 3 230 lenticular lens array) disposed on the upper layer (part of display panel 220), wherein the light controlling layer comprises: a variable light transmission layer including liquid crystal molecules (liquid crystal layer 260); and a lens layer (transparent replica layer 254) disposed on the variable light transmission layer and comprising lenses and a peripheral layer (second substrate 234) disposed on the lenses to implement a 2D- 3D switchable display [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho in view of Hong to implement a 2D-3D switchable display. Regarding claim 15, Hong teaches the light provided by the display layer is provided as linearly polarized output light [0036] and is inputted to the light controlling layer, the lenses and the peripheral layer form an interface, the display device operates in a two-dimensional (2D) image mode for displaying a 2D image or a three-dimensional (3D) image mode for displaying a 3D image, in case that the display device operates in the 2D image mode, the linearly polarized output light is transmitted without refraction at the interface (fig. 3A), and in case that the display device operates in the 3D image mode, the linearly polarized output light is refracted at the interface (fig. 3B). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-20 are allowed. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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. /PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601960
CONTROL APPARATUS, INTERCHANGEABLE LENS, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596217
OPTICAL ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585152
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585081
OPTICAL MODULE AND VIRTUAL REALITY (VR) DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560841
LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 994 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month