Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/819,172

DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 29, 2024
Priority
May 11, 2020 — RE 10-2020-0056149 +2 more
Examiner
CROCKETT, RYAN M
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
614 granted / 778 resolved
+10.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
812
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
92.5%
+52.5% vs TC avg
§102
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§112
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 778 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1–7, 11–17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as set forth below, in view of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,706,961 and 12,108,645. Claims 1–7, 11–16, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4–6, 12–14, and 16–18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,961. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed main and auxiliary elements in the patented claims correspond to the first and second elements in the pending claims; see the below claims correspondence table: Pending Claims Patented Claims (11,706,961) 1 1 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 1 6 2 7 12 11 13 12 16 13 17 14 18 15 13 16 14 20 13, and where the component being a camera would have been obvious. Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,645. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they substantially correspond to the patented claims as in the below claims correspondence table: Pending Claims Patented Claims (12,108,645) 1 7 5 7 7 7 11 18 15 18 17 18 20 18, and where the component being a camera would have been obvious. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8–10, 18, and 19 are 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. The remaining claims would be allowable, subject to the above Double Patenting rejections. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12669677
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR HEATING TUNABILITY IN PROCESSING CHAMBERS
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12663650
HEAD-MOUNTABLE DEVICE WITH ADAPTABLE FIT
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12643469
VEHICULAR SIDE DOOR WITH INTEGRATED BASE FOR EXTERIOR MIRROR
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12645092
BEAM COMBINER, METHOD OF FORMING ALIGNMENT FILM, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING OPTICAL ELEMENT
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12631729
SENSOR SYSTEM AND SENSOR UNIT
4y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 0m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 778 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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