Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/766,834

DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Examiner
NADAV, ORI
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
417 granted / 693 resolved
-7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
760
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.6%
+12.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 693 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, various elements, for example the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth conductive layers recited in claims 6 and 7 must be shown in one display device structure or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the various elements recited in claims 6 and 7, for example the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth conductive layers are not recited in the disclosure and are not depicted in the drawings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no adequate support in the disclosure and in the drawings for the claimed limitations, for example the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth conductive layers as recited in claims 6-7, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the various elements recited in claims 6 and 7 are not recited in the disclosure and are not depicted in the drawings in such a way as to comply with written description requirement. Response to Arguments 1. Applicants argue that the objection to the drawings is traversed because “the asserted features are sufficiently illustrated in at least Applicant's FIG. 4A (annotated below) and associated circuit diagram of FIG. 4B”. 1. Applicant’s explanation must be included in the application so that individuals reading the patent would understand the correlation between the claimed first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth conductive layers and the specification. 2. Applicants argue that “First, as noted above, these features are believed to be sufficiently illustrated in at least FIGS. 4A and 4B. Second, they are believed to be sufficiently described in the associated disclosure to establish support and possession of the claimed invention. 2. The examiner disagrees that “these features are believed to be sufficiently illustrated in at least FIGS. 4A and 4B” and “they are believed to be sufficiently described in the associated disclosure to establish support and possession of the claimed invention”, because there is no adequate support in the disclosure and in the drawings for the claimed limitations, for example the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth conductive layers as recited in claims 6-7, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and the various elements recited in claims 6 and 7 are not recited in the disclosure and are not depicted in the drawings in such a way as to comply with written description requirement. 3. Applicants argue that “Here, elements may be described as various wiring layers, electrodes or scan lines. However, it is clear from the disclosure and associated drawings and circuitry that each of these is a layer that is conductive and thus suitably described as "conductive layers." 3. It is correct that, generally speaking, “elements may be described as various wiring layers, electrodes or scan lines”. However, in the case, an individual or even an artisan, would not understand which of the recited elements are wiring layers, electrodes or scan lines. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). O.N. /ORI NADAV/ 3/2/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 09, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599028
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGES HAVING ADHESIVE MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588281
DISPLAY APPARATUS COMPRISING THIN FILM TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581995
Light Emitting Display Panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566097
USE OF A SPIN TRANSITION MATERIAL TO MEASURE AND/OR LIMIT THE TEMPERATURE OF ELECTRONIC/PHOTONIC COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12543452
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
60%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+20.6%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 693 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