Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/055,520

DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Priority
Jun 28, 2024 — RE 10-2024-0085545
Examiner
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
Art Unit
2626
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 9m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allowance Rate
353 granted / 596 resolved
-2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
626
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
58.7%
+18.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 596 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/26 has been entered. 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, 3-7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0066997; hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘997) in view of Hsieh et al. (US 2025/0393428). Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘997 discloses a display device comprising: pixels comprising light emitting elements disposed in respective emission areas, the pixels including first pixels and second pixels (abstract, figs. 3-4, ¶ 62-73; see also figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, emission areas EMA, pixels PXL2 and PXL1; see also fig. 11); conductive patterns disposed in a touch sensing layer on the light emitting elements and comprising a touch electrode (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, touch sensor TS with conductive patterns CP1, CP2; see also fig. 11) and a bridge pattern electrically connected to the touch electrode (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, bridge pattern BRP1; see also figs. 8-9); a first light blocking layer (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, light blocking pattern LBP2; see also fig. 11); and a second light blocking layer disposed on the first light blocking layer and surrounding the emission areas of the second pixels out of the first pixels and the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, light blocking pattern LBP1), the display device further comprising a light blocking pattern disposed in a same layer as at least one of the conductive patterns of the touch sensing layer and surrounding the emission areas of the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, light blocking pattern LBP3), one of the touch electrode and the bridge pattern is disposed in the same layer as the light blocking pattern and contain a same material as the light blocking pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; e.g., LBP3 configured as CP1; see also ¶ 143-149). Lee ‘997 fails to disclose a first light blocking layer disposed on the touch sensing layer and separated from the conductive patterns, the first light blocking layer being disposed in a non-emission area around the emission areas to surround the emission areas of each of the first pixels and the second pixels. Hsieh teaches a first light blocking layer disposed on the touch sensing layer and separated from the conductive patterns, the first light blocking layer being disposed in a non-emission area around the emission areas to surround the emission areas of each of the first pixels and the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 128-133, e.g., see fig. 17, orthographic projection of light shield portions 061 in light-shielding layer 06 close to the base substrate 01 overlap pixel defining portions 041 of both pixels P1 and P2; overcoat layer 10 is between light shielding portions 061 and touch electrodes 091; see also figs. 3-4, ¶ 106-108). Lee ‘997 and Hsieh are both directed to display devices with touch sensors and light blocking layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee ‘997 with the device of Hsieh since such a modification provides peep-proof flexibility (Hsieh, ¶ 100, ¶ 211) and provides a peep-proof angle (Hsieh, ¶ 108). Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the touch sensing layer comprises: a first conductive layer comprising the bridge pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, e.g., CP1/BRP1; see also ¶ 143-149; see also figs. 8-9); a second conductive layer comprising the touch electrode (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, e.g., CP2; see also ¶ 143-149; see also figs. 8-9); and an insulating layer disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, e.g., INS1; see also ¶ 143-149; see also figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the first conductive layer further comprises the light blocking pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; see also ¶ 143-149), and the bridge pattern and the light blocking pattern are spaced apart from each other (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; see also ¶ 143-149). Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the first conductive layer further comprises the light blocking pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; see also ¶ 143-149), and the bridge pattern and the light blocking pattern are integral with each other (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; e.g., LBP3 configured as CP1; see also ¶ 143-149; see also figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the insulating layer is disposed on the first conductive layer, and the second conductive layer is disposed on the insulating layer (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, e.g., CP1, INS1, and CP2; see also ¶ 143-149; see also figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the first conductive layer further comprises the light blocking pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1; see also ¶ 143-149), and the light blocking pattern is disposed closer to the light emitting elements of the second pixels than are the touch electrode and the first light blocking layer (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1, CP1 below CP2; see also ¶ 143-149 and figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the light blocking pattern is disposed closer to the emission areas of the second pixels than is the touch electrode (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1, CP1 below CP2; see also ¶ 143-149 and figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 11, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein each of the pixels comprises a plurality of emission areas comprising a first emission area emitting light of a first color, a second emission area emitting light of a second color, and a third emission area emitting light of a third color (figs. 15-16, see ¶ 68, ¶ 108). Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the light blocking pattern individually surrounds each of the emission areas disposed in each of the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, PXL1). Regarding claim 13, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the light blocking pattern surrounds the plurality of emission areas disposed in each of the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, PXL1). Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the touch electrode and the light blocking pattern are disposed in different conductive layers in the touch sensing layer and do not overlap each other (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, e.g., CP2 and LBP3; see also ¶ 143-149 and figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 15, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the touch electrode and the light blocking pattern are disposed in different conductive layers in the touch sensing layer and partially overlap each other (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 may be provided in the same layer as CP1 or BRP1, e.g., LBP3 configured as CP1; see also ¶ 143-149 and figs. 8-9, e.g., SP1/SP2 overlap BRP1). Regarding claim 16, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the first light blocking layer covers the touch electrode and the light blocking pattern (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 located under LBP2, LBP2 located under LBP1; e.g., LBP3 configured as CP1; see also ¶ 143-149 and figs. 8-9). Regarding claim 17, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the second light blocking layer overlaps a part of the first light blocking layer (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, LBP3 located under LBP2, LBP2 located under LBP1). Regarding claim 18, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the second light blocking layer is not disposed in the first pixels, and the second light blocking layer is disposed in the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, PXL2 and PXL1). Regarding claim 19, Lee ‘997 discloses wherein the first light blocking layer comprises openings exposing the emission areas of the first pixels and openings exposing the emission areas of the second pixels (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, PXL2 and PXL1, see also fig. 11), and a size of the openings in the first light blocking layer exposing the emission areas of the first pixels and a size of the openings in the first light blocking layer exposing the emission areas of the second pixels are different (figs. 15-17, ¶ 227-247, PXL2 and PXL1, see also fig. 11). Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘997 in view of Hsieh as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0051711; hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘711). Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘997 in view of Hsieh fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second conductive layer further comprises the light blocking pattern. Lee ‘711 teaches wherein the second conductive layer further comprises the light blocking pattern (fig. 13B, ¶ 253, light absorbing pattern ABS may be formed on SP1-2; see also figs. 15-16, ¶ 258-266). Lee ‘997 in view of Hsieh and Lee ‘711 are both directed to display devices with touch sensors and light blocking layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lee ‘997 in view of Hsieh with the device of Lee ‘711 since such a modification improves reflective color and viewing angle/luminance ratio (Lee ‘711, ¶ 5, ¶ 265). Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘711 further teaches wherein the insulating layer comprises a dummy hole overlapping the light blocking pattern under the light blocking pattern, and a part of the light blocking pattern extends into the dummy hole (fig. 13B, ¶ 253; see also figs. 15-16, ¶ 258-266, ABS extends down from IS-IL1 to TFE). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET. 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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. /KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Jan 21, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 21, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
May 08, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12724483
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12718751
DISPLAY APPARATUS
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12718765
DISPLAY DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOF
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12687944
ACTIVE STYLUS DOWNLINK SIGNAL TRANSMISSION TIMING CONTROL RELATIVE TO SENSOR CONTROLLER
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12674985
NEAR-EYE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+25.7%)
3y 4m (~1y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 596 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