Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 23, 2026
Application No. 18/895,349

LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Priority
Jul 23, 2019 — CN 201910668584.2 +2 more
Examiner
MEHTA, RATISHA
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Innolux Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
581 granted / 648 resolved
+21.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 648 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2025, 3/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 4, Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 5, Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 6, Claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 7, Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 8, Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 9, Claim 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Regarding claim 10, Claim 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12132143 discloses the entire claimed invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al (US 2015/0001486) Hwang (US 2014/0029080) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 pm. 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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. /RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 24, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12772755
CONTACT LAYER FORMATION WITH MICROWAVE ANNEALING FOR NMOS DEVICES
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12765126
DISPLAY PANELS AND DISPLAY DEVICES
3y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12757553
LED DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
3y 8m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12757786
LED LIGHTING STRIP
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12757800
METHOD OF MAKING A MULTI-CHIP PACKAGE DEVICE
2y 3m to grant Granted Oct 06, 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
90%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.6%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 648 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