Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/756,471

DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
SHAH, NEEL D
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
531 granted / 611 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
630
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 611 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority 2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2018-0003505, filed on 1/10/2018. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 4. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 5. Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Kwak Won Kyu (KR 20160017845, provided in the IDS, English translation attached). (“Kwak”). 6. Regarding claim 1, Kwak teaches A display device [Figures 1-12, a display device is shown, see Abstract], comprising: a substrate including a display area and a non-display area outside the display area [Figures 8-10, a substrate is shown including a display area DA and a non-display area NDA outside the display area] ; a plurality of pixels disposed in the display area on the substrate [Figures 8-10, pixels (RP, GP) disposed in the display area DA is shown]; a driving integrated circuit (IC) disposed in the non-display area adjacent to a first side of the display area on the substrate [Figures 8-10, a driving IC is shown in image below disposed in the non-display area NDA]; a first conductive line disposed in the non-display area on the substrate, the first conductive line surrounding sides of the display area other than the first side [Figures 8-10, a first conductive line OL1 is shown]; a second conductive line disposed in the non-display area on the substrate, the second conductive line disposed along the first conductive line [Figures 8-10, a second conductive line OL2 is shown]; a first matching resistor disposed in the non-display area on the substrate, the first matching resistor electrically connected to the driving IC [Figures 8-10, a first matching resistor R disposed in NDA is shown, electrically connected to the driving IC]; and a second matching resistor disposed in the non-display area on the substrate, the second matching resistor electrically connected to the driving IC [Figures 8-10, a second matching resistor R disposed in NDA is shown, electrically connected to the driving IC], wherein the first conductive line is disposed between the display area and the second conductive line, the first conductive line and the second conductive line are disposed at different layers from each other, and the first conductive line and the second conductive line are electrically connected to the driving IC [Figures 8-10, broadly speaking, the first conductive line OL1 is disposed between the display area DA and the second conductive line OL2, the lines are disposed at different layers and the lines are electrically connected to the driving IC as shown below]. PNG media_image1.png 699 597 media_image1.png Greyscale 7. Regarding claim 2, Kwak teaches further comprising a plurality of data lines connected to the pixels, wherein each of the first conductive line and the second conductive line is electrically connected to at least one of the data lines [Figures 8-10, data lines D1-Dm connected to the pixels RP, GP are shown]. 8. Regarding claim 3, Kwak teaches wherein each of the first matching resistor and the second matching resistor is electrically connected to at least one of the data lines [Figures 8-10, the first matching resistor and the second matching resistor is electrically connected to the data lines D1-Dm]. 9. Regarding claim 4, Kwak teaches wherein the first conductive line and the second conductive line are electrically connected to a first data line and a second data line, respectively, the first matching resistor is electrically connected to a third data line adjacent to the first data line, and the second matching resistor is electrically connected to a fourth data line adjacent to the second data line [Figures 8-10, the arrangement is shown]. 10. Regarding claim 5, Kwak teaches wherein the first matching resistor is connected to the third data line by a first switching element, and the second matching resistor is connected to the fourth data line by a second switching element [Figures 8-10, the arrangement is shown, see switching element/transistor TT1]. 11. Regarding claim 6, Kwak teaches wherein the first conductive line is connected to the first data line by a first switching element, and the second conductive line is connected to the second data line by a second switching element [Figures 8-10, the arrangement is shown]. 12. Regarding claim 10, Kwak teaches wherein a first pixel connected to the first data line emits a first color, and a second pixel connected to the second data line emits a second color different from the first color [Figures 8-10, the pixel connected to the data line is shown]. 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. 13. 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. 14. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak Won Kyu (KR 20160017845). (“Kwak”). 15. Regarding claim 7, Kwak teaches the display device. Kwak does not explicitly teach wherein a resistance of the second matching resistor is greater than a resistance of the first matching resistor. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kwak to optimize the resistance value of the matching resistors because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05). 16. Regarding claim 8, Kwak teaches the display device. Kwak does not explicitly teach wherein a resistance of the second conductive line is greater than a resistance of the first conductive line. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kwak to optimize the resistance value of the conductive line because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05). 17. Regarding claim 9, Kwak teaches the display device. Kwak does not explicitly teach wherein a resistance of the first matching resistor is greater than a resistance of the first conductive line, and a resistance of the second matching resistor is greater than a resistance of the second conductive line. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kwak to optimize the resistance value of the conductive line because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05). Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Byun et al. (US 2016/0225312), Figures 1-3, a display panel including a display area, a non-display area, pixels, transistor switches and driving IC. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM. 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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. /NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601682
OPEN RESONATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596115
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CAPACITOR ACTIVATION OF CONCRETE SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590991
OPTO-ELECTRICAL PROBE CARD PLATFORM FOR WAFER-LEVEL TESTING OF OPTICAL MEMS STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591006
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE TESTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590994
CANTILEVER PROBE CARD DEVICE AND SOLDER RECEIVING PROBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+7.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 611 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