Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/779,088

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 22, 2024
Examiner
MAYY, MOHAMMAD
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
194 granted / 408 resolved
-17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-9 pending 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (PG Pub 2012/0068201 A1) in view of McKee (US Pat. 5,906,857) and in further view of Boivin (US Pat. 4,579,083). Consider Claim 1, Sung teaches the process of forming display device (abstract), teaches the process that include placing first and second display substrates (501, 502) having long side and short side in a chamber (731) ([0050], figure 7a-7d), and placing the mask close to align and to correspond with the first display substrates [0021], [0085], [0087]. Sung teaches the supplying of two deposition sources (301 and 302) where each deposition source (110) include crucible (112) ([0064], figure 4), where the deposition materials passes though the mask and deposited on the first and/or second substrate [0087]. Sung teaches the moving of the deposition source in a longitudinal direction of the short side of one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate, arranging the deposition source to face the other one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate, aligning the mask assembly corresponding to the other one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate with the other one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate, and supplying at least two deposition materials to the mask assembly through the deposition source, and allowing the at least two deposition materials having passed through the mask assembly to be deposited on the other one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate while moving the deposition source in a longitudinal direction of the long side of the other one of the first display substrate and the second display substrate (figures 5 and 7a-7d, [0021], [0087], [0091]). PNG media_image1.png 910 929 media_image1.png Greyscale Sung does not teach the process of sensing the temperature inside each of the deposition crucibles by a sensor placed inside the crucible. However, McKee is in the process of vapor depositing onto a substrate in a vacuum chamber (24) (Col. 3, lines 60-67) where the chamber (24) having plurality of crucibles (figure 1), where the vaporize source is formed by heating the crucibles (34) with heating element (37) (Col. 4, lines 44-50), teaches a crucible (34) having source material (46) sits within collar (80) (figure 2, Col. 5, line 64 to Col. 6, line 10), where collar (80) have a monitor (84) where the monitor is used to monitors that the deposition rate during the deposition process, using a pressure sensor placed within the interior of the collar) (Col. 6, lines 4-9, and figure 3). Therefore, sense/detect the internal pressure of the crucibles. McKee teaches the pressure sensor/monitor (84) placed between the source (46) and the shutters (60, 62) for collecting information thereat, the information gathered by the monitor (84) is used in a feedback loop (thus comparing the calculated evaporation rate to the preset evaporation rate) to enhance the accuracy of control of the deposition process (Col. 6, lines 7-12). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Sung with McKee to calculate the evaporation rate by measuring the internal pressure of each of the crucibles using a sensor placed on the deposition source, to enhance the accuracy of control of the deposition process (Col. 6, lines 7-12). The combined Sung (with McKee) does not teach the adjusting the shutter opening based on the calculated and the measured temperature. However, Boivin is in the art of evaporation deposition process of crucible onto a substrate (abstract), teaches the calculating/sensing of the evaporation rate using quartz crystal monitor (abstract), and the comparing of the calculated rate vs the reference presser/signal (abstract), and the moving the aperture plates (of the shutter) to corrected rate base on the comparing step (abstract), where the aperture plates (46, 48) are parts of the shutter assembly (20) (Col. 2, lines 50-60, Fig. 3). Boivin teaches the shutter’s degree of opening is adjusted to the desired/compared rate base on the calculated/monitored evaporation rate (Claim 4, lines 14-17). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Sung (with McKee) with Boivin to calculate the evaporation rate and compare the actual evaporation rate with the reference rate and adjust the shutter opening’s for each crucible, to provide with a correction of the desired film deposition rate (abstract). Consider Claim 2, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the deposition process is preformed where the substrate (18) is horizontally as the deposition surface faces the lower surface of the chamber (10) (Boivin, figure 1). Consider Claims 3 and 5, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the shutter between the crucible and the substrate which moves in a linear motion (Boivin, figures 1-2). And where it would be obvious that the mask of Sung is between the deposition source and the shutter, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success. Consider Claim 4, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the use of separate deposition sources (301 and 302) (Sung, Figure 7) where each deposition source (110) having crucible (112) containing deposition material (115) (Sung, Figure 4) where the deposition process is controlled (Sung, [0099]), thus having a cut-off portion that is connect and control the amount of deposition (Sung, [0100]). Consider Claim 6, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the process of deposition two deposition materials using two deposition sources (301, 302) on the first and the second display substrate (501, 502) (Sung, figure 6-7) using masks (Sung, [0087], [0091]). Consider Claim 7, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the moving of the shutter (60) in a rotation motion around axis (64) (McKee, figure 4). Consider Claim 8, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the crucibles has a limited ejection angle of the deposition material ejected (McKee, Figure 9). Consider Claim 9, the combined Sung (with McKee and Boivin) teaches the two deposition materials have different materials from each other (Sung, [0089]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM EST. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /Mohammad Mayy/ Art Unit 1718 /MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603199
METHOD FOR IMPROVING ANTI-REDUCTION PERFORMANCE OF PTC THERMOSENSITIVE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595551
METHOD FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF PARTICLES OF A METAL POWDER AND METAL POWDER PARTICLES OBTAINED THEREBY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577732
METHOD OF MAKING FIRE RETARDANT MATERIALS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546010
Turbine Engine Shaft Coating
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546001
COMPOSITION FOR DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER AND METHOD OF DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
48%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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