Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/022,463

SCAN DRIVER AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Examiner
LEE JR, KENNETH B
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1270 resolved
+23.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1295
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1270 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that prior art fails to teach wherein the connection lines have bent portions that overlap at least some of the signal lines. Upon further review of Park, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park teaches connection lines having bent portions (LSC12z) as shown in Fig. 8. Applicant argues that the signal/data lines (DL1-DLm) are “not shown… as they are elsewhere disposed.” This argument does not establish that the signal lines are arranged in a manner that avoids overlap with the bent portions. Figure 8 of Park shows a routing region in which multiple vertical lines and laterally extending bent portions are in the same area. In the absence of any teaching in Park that the signal lines are spatially separated from these bent portions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the signal/data lines, which are acknowledged to be present, traverse the same routing region and would therefore overlap with at least some of the bent portions. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in Park that would preclude such overlap. Therefore, Park teaches, or at least renders obvious, connection lines having bent portions that overlap signal lines. 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. 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. Claims 1-5, 12-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jo et al. (hereinafter “Jo”), US Patent No. 11,501,715), in view of Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”), US Pub. No. 2020/0327854. The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches a scan driver (fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of stages sequentially outputting scan signals (fig. 1, stages 150); signal lines disposed proximate to stages, each of the signal lines extending in a first direction and configured to provide an input signal (fig. 1, signal lines Sn); first clock lines disposed proximate to the signal lines, each of the first clock lines extending in the first direction and configured to provide a first clock signal (fig. 1, CLK1-CLK4); and first connection lines, each of which extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction and is electrically connecting the first clock lines (fig. 1, lines connecting clock lines and stage/scan lines). Jo fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the first connection lines comprises a bent portion, the bent portion overlapping at least some of the signal lines and is configured to compensate for a distance difference between the first clock lines and the stages. However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a gate driver including a bent portion that overlaps signal lines to compensate for a distance differences between the clock lines and scan stages (see [0007, 0100-0103, 0127-0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the invention to modify Park to include the feature of Jo. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to compensate for the decrease in luminance due to degradation of an organic light emitting diode (see Park, [0104]). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jo and Park teaches wherein the first clock lines comprise a (1-1)-th clock line and a (1-2)-th clock line arranged adjacent to each other, wherein the first connection lines comprise a (1-1)-th connection line that electrically connects the (1-1)-th clock line with the stages, and a (1-2)-th connection line that electrically connects the (1-2)-th clock line with the stages (Jo, fig. 1, stages 150, clock lines CLK1-4), and wherein a length of a bent portion of the (1-1)-th connection line is smaller than a length of a bent portion of the (1-2)-th connection line (Park, [0100-0103, 0127-0128]). Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein the signal lines comprise first and second signal lines, each of which extends in the first direction, wherein the (1-1)-th connection line comprises a first bent portion overlapping the first signal line (fig. 8, [0122-0123]), and a second bent portion overlapping the second signal line (fig. 8, [0122-0123]), and wherein the (1-2)-th connection line comprises a first bent portion overlapping the first signal line, and a second bent portion overlapping the second signal line (fig. 8, [0122-0123]). Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the first bent portion of the (1-1)-th connection line comprises: a first portion extended from the (1-1)-th connection line in the first direction; a second portion extended from the first portion in the second direction (fig. 8 and accompanying text); and a third portion extended from the second portion in an opposite direction of the first direction, wherein the second portion of the first bent portion of the (1-1)-th connection line overlaps the first signal line (fig. 8 and accompanying text). Regarding claim 5, Park teaches a first portion extended from the (1-1)-th connection line in the first direction (fig. 8, [0122-0123]; a second portion extended from the first portion in the second direction (fig. 8, [0122-0123]); and a third portion extended from the second portion in a direction opposite to the first direction, wherein lengths of the first and third parts of the first bent portion of the (1-1)-th connection line are greater than length of the first and third parts of the second bent portion of the (1-1)-th connection line (fig. 8, [0122-0123]). Regarding claim 12, Jo teaches second clock lines disposed proximate to the first clock lines and extended in the first direction to provide a second clock signal (fig. 1, CLK1, CLK2); second connection lines extended in the second direction to electrically connect the second clock lines with the stages (fig. 1, stages 150); third clock lines disposed proximate to the second clock lines, extended in the first direction, and configured to provide a third clock signal; and third connection lines extended in the second direction and electrically connecting the third clock lines with the stages (fig. 1, CLK3, stages 150). Regarding claim 13, Park teaches wherein each of the second connection lines comprise a bent portion that is disposed between the second clock lines and the first clock lines and is configured to compensate for a distance difference between the second clock lines and the stages ([0007, 0100]). Regarding claim 14, Park teaches wherein each of the third connection lines comprise a bent portion that is disposed between the third clock lines and the second clock lines and is configured to compensate for a distance difference between the third clock lines and the stages ([0007, 0100]). Regarding claim 15, it is a display device of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above. Regarding claims 16-19, they have similar limitations to those of claims 2-5 and are rejected on the same grounds presented above. Regarding claim 21, it is an electronic device of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-11 and 20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, either singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the specific combination comprising the specific elements included in the dependent claims above. 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0165217) teaches scan stages including bent portions of signal lines. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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. /KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602614
Training an Artificial Intelligence Module for Industrial Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603026
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603050
MICRO DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603052
PIXEL CIRCUIT AND ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597380
PIXEL DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
86%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1270 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