Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/208,605

ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
May 15, 2025
Examiner
BODDIE, WILLIAM
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Innolux Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
47%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 193 resolved
-36.1% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
221
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
62.9%
+22.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 193 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim recites the limitations “at least partially overlapped” in the final lines. Examiner believes the claim limitations are not clear because it does not specify how overlap is evaluated (plain view, cross-sectional, projection, etc). Appropriate correction is required. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. The following is a claim comparison of the instant application and the claims of U.S. Patent 12,333,980 Application No. 19/208605 U.S. Patent No. 12,333,980 1 An electronic device, comprising: a display panel having a display area and a non-display area adjacent to the display area, wherein the display panel comprises: a pixel disposed in the display area; a data connection line disposed in the non-display area; and a scan connection line disposed in the non-display area; a data signal driving circuit, wherein the data connection line is electrically connected between the pixel and the data signal driving circuit; and a scan signal driving circuit, wherein the scan connection line is electrically connected between the pixel and the scan signal driving circuit, wherein the data connection line and the scan connection line in the non-display area are at least partially overlapped. 1 An electronic device, comprising: a frame; and a transparent display device, at least partially disposed in the frame, and comprising: a display panel comprising a display area, a non-display area adjacent to the display area, and a plurality of pixels disposed in the display area, wherein a difference between a transmittance of the display arca and a transmittance of the non-display arca is less than 30% of the transmittance of the display area; and a driving element electrically connected to the plurality of the pixels, wherein when the transparent display device is moved to a state, the display panel is at least partially exposed outside the frame, and the driving element is hidden inside the frame. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,333,980. Applicants’ claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent 12,333,980 as illustrated above The dependent claims are not patentably distinct from the Patent claims for the same reasons. 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. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2020/0295117) in view of Yang (10,840,273). Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an electronic device (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4, display device), comprising: a display panel having a display area and a non-display area adjacent to the display area, wherein the display panel (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4, circuit area and display area including pixels) comprises: a pixel disposed in the display area (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4); a data connection line disposed in the non-display area; and a scan connection line disposed in the non-display area (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4, circuit area and display area including pixels); a data signal driving circuit (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4), wherein the data connection line is electrically connected between the pixel and the data signal driving circuit; and a scan signal driving circuit (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4, scan lines and data lines), wherein the scan connection line is electrically connected between the pixel and the scan signal driving circuit (Park: abstract and Figs 1-2 and 4). Park does not explicitly teach wherein the data connection line and the scan connection line in the non-display area are at least partially overlapped. Yang teaches wherein the data connection line and the scan connection line in the non-display area are at least partially overlapped (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8). They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of the teachings of Yang so as to provide dense routing in the non-display area while maintaining insulation at overlaps to avoid shorts and improve reliability. Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the data signal driving circuit comprises a packaged integrated circuit element (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above). Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the scan signal driving circuit comprises a packaged integrated circuit element (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, a driving integrated circuit including a gate/scan driver). Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches a driving carrier board bonded to the display panel, the data signal driving circuit is disposed on the driving carrier board (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, flexible printed circuit board in which a driving integrated circuit has been arranged.). regarding claim 5, the combination teaches a first insulating layer, located between the scan connection line and the data connection line (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, insulation/passivation layer at the crossover point). Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches a second insulating layer located on the first insulating layer and the data connection line (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, stacked dielectric layers around the routing stack and a crossover insulation layer at overlap points). Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches a scan line and a data line, disposed in the display area (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, scan lines and data lines disposed in the display area.). regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein the display panel further comprises another data connection line, another pixel, and another scan connection line, the another data connection line is electrically connected between the data signal driving circuit and the another pixel, and the another scan connection line is electrically connected between the scan signal driving circuit and the another pixel, and wherein the data connection line and the scan connection line are included by a first angle, and the another data connection line and the another scan connection line are included by a second angle different from the first angle (Yang: abstract and Figs. 4, 6, and 8, see also Park as discussed above, different routing orientations among different lines is disclosed and overlap routing concept is clearly taught. It would have been obvious to modify Park in view of Yang to form different angles depending upon arrangement and routing direction and provide the same predictable results.). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yang in further view of Liu et al. (2019/0012957). Regarding claim 7, the combination does not explicitly teach the concept of wherein the pixel comprises a micro-LED. Liu teaches wherein the pixel comprises a micro-LED (Liu: abstract and Figs.1-2, micro-LEDs). They are analogous art because they deal with the same field of invention of a display device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light-emitting element and pixel system in Park with micro-LEDs of Liu because micro-LED pixels are a known alternative emissive pixel technology. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEJOON AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-9528. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at 571-272-7677. 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. /SEJOON AHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589653
VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573336
ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH BETTER RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567373
PIXEL CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557387
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542116
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
26%
Grant Probability
47%
With Interview (+21.0%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 193 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