Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/492,831

VAPOR CHAMBER AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 24, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, MUKUNDBHAI G
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
582 granted / 780 resolved
+6.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 subject matter “wherein one or more of (1), (2), or (3) are satisfied” is indefinite. Because it is not clear type of the apparatus structure is claimed, as structure of the apparatus is indefinite due to multiple structural options. Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because they depend on claim 1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Regarding claim 2, 8 and 9 do not specify further limitation of the subject matter claimed in claim, as it claims similar structure in dependent claims. 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. Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeyong JUNG (Wu) US 9,569,024 B2, in view of CHUEN-SHU Hou (Hou) US 2010/0071879 A1 and further in view of CHENG-TIEN LAI (LAI) US 2009/0166005 A1. As per claim 1 Wu disclose; A display device (Fig. 1 item 1) comprising: a display panel (12); a driving board disposed on a side of the display panel (12); and a vapor chamber (14) disposed between the display panel and the driving board (211), wherein the vapor chamber includes: an external member (141); a first wick (142 capillary structure functions same as wick on display side top wall), and a refrigerant (item 144) which is contained in the external member (141); and a second wick (141 on bottom wall facing circuit board) which are disposed on at least parts of inner surfaces of the external member (141) and face each other (Fig. 3A wick on top and bottom wall), a refrigerant dense part (in liquid state) in which the refrigerant densely resides, (at bottom wall) Wu do not teach; an area occupied by the first wick on the inner surfaces of the external member is greater than an area occupied by the second wick on the inner surfaces of the external member. And a width of the second wick is less than a width of the driving board. However in analogues art of vapor chamber Hou teaches, a vapor chamber having, an area occupied by the first wick (Fig. 5 wick on wall item 11) on the inner surfaces of the external member is greater than an area occupied by the second wick (Fig. 5 wick on wall item 12) on the inner surfaces of the external member (item 50). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Hou to the device of Wu would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows for varying wick area as per cooling requirement and to improve efficiency. Wu and Hou do not teach a width of the second wick is less than a width of the driving board. However in analogues art of vapor chamber LAI teaches, a width of the second wick (item 110 examiner interprets as a second wick) is less than a width of the driving board (As per para 0018 wick structure “110 has a size identical to that of the heat-generating component but smaller than that of the cavity 102 of base 100, therefor size of the wick structure 110 is less than size of the circuit board attached to the heat generating component (not shown) for evidence Wu disclose item 221 heat generating component smaller than circuit board 21). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by LAI to the device of Wu and Hou would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows to reduce the thickness of the vapor chamber without increase of the resistance to the vapor. (Para 110) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-15 and 17-20 are allowed, as none of the prior art disclose subject matter of claim 11 and 15. Claims 2-10 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding applicant’s comment “As it is believed that all of the rejections set forth in the Official Action have been fully met, favorable reconsideration and allowance are earnestly solicited.” Examiner respectfully disagree, because amended subject matter of claim 1 is indefinite as per 112 rejections made in this office action, and further changes scope of the application, because Claim 9 was objected previously because of dependency on objected claim 8. As per amended claim 1 includes subject matter of claim 9 as one of the option, independent of claim 8 subject matter, therefor claim 1 is rejected, as prior art LAI disclose one of the required optional condition e.g. condition (3). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art JUNG US 2021/0337700 A1 1-3 disclose display (10), vapor chamber (30) and driving circuit board (50) arranged respectively to dissipate heat from display and the circuit boards, further disclose details of vapor chamber (fig. 10) having mesh as wick. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1364. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7Am-6pm Fri 7-12 pm (Flex). 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, Jayprakash P Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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. /MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 16, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581626
DISPLAY DEVICE, FUNCTIONAL LAYER INCLUDED IN DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581612
CENTRIFUGAL FAN AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575052
Telecommunications Network Equipment Unit Comprising A Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575070
ALIGNMENT OF LIQUID COOLING MANIFOLDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563700
LOOP HEAT PIPE, HOUSING ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 780 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