Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/261,410

DISPLAY APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Examiner
SEMBER, THOMAS M
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1016 granted / 1200 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1224
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§102
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1200 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0382336, hereafter referred to as ‘Lee ‘336’. Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘336 discloses a display apparatus (figures 1-7), comprising: a display panel configured to display an image (see display panel described in para. # 30); a light source configured to supply light to the display panel (see backlight which includes a light source for illuminating display panel in para. #30), the light source being provided on a rear side of the display panel (display panel is illuminated by a backlight on a rear side thereof, see para. #’s 30-33); a chassis 10 is provided on a rear side of the light source (see figures 3-7 and para. #’s 30-36), the chassis 10 comprising a cover body (12, 12a, 12b) covering a rear surface of the light source (see figures 3-7 and para. #’s 30-36) and a support protrusion (12a, 12b), that is bent (figures 3-7), protruding from a rear surface of the cover body (figures 3-7); and a substrate 20 supported by the support protrusion (12a, 12b) and provided between the cover body and the support protrusion (figures 3-7), wherein the substrate 20 is configured to be soldered (see solder 24 in figures 3-7, para. #’s 53-60) to the chassis 10 from one surface thereof (figures 3-7). Regarding claim 2, The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one surface of the substrate 20 is a rear surface of the substrate (figures 6-7), and the substrate is soldered rearward toward the support protrusion (figures 6-7). Regarding claim 3, the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the support protrusion (12a, 12b) comprises: a support portion (12-1, 12-2) connected to the cover body 12 (figures 3-7); and a bending portion (12a, 12b) extending from the support portion in parallel with the cover body (figures 4-7), and wherein the substrate 20 is soldered to the bending portion (via solder 24, see para. #’s 53-60 and figures 4-7). Regarding claim 4, The display apparatus of claim 3, wherein the substrate 20 is spaced apart from the cover body and the bending portion (see figure 4 which shows substrate 20 is spaced from the bending portion and cover body before solder 24 fills in the space to hold the substrate in place). Regarding claim 5, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one surface of the substrate 20 is a front surface of the substrate (see figures 3-5), and the substrate is soldered forward to be connected to the chassis (via solder 24, see para. #’s 53-60 and figures 3-5). Regarding claim 6, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate 20 is soldered to the rear surface of the cover body 12 (as broadly claimed, rear surface is the surface which receives substrate 20 below the topmost surface of the cover body 12, see figures 4-7). 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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘336 in view of 2000-0009197 (cited by applicant in IDS on 07/07/25). Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘336 discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that a plurality of soldering portions are arranged in one direction, which is a length direction of the display panel. Lee ‘336 discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a soldering portion 24, which is provided to protrude from the one surface of the substrate 20 and be connected to the chassis 10. 2000-0009197 discloses a display (figures 1-4) which includes a plurality of soldering portions 20, which are provided to connect a substrate 50 to a chassis 51. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the display of Lee ‘336 so that the soldering portion includes a plurality of soldering portions that are arranged in one direction, which is a length direction of the display panel as taught by 2000-0009197 since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using more soldering points for more efficiently securing the substrate to the chassis of Lee ‘336. Regarding claim 8, wherein the plurality of soldering portions 20 are arranged spaced apart from each other in the one direction (see fig. 3 of 2000-0009197). Regarding claim 9, wherein the plurality of soldering portions 20 are arranged continuously in the one direction (see fig. 3 of 2000-0009197). Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘336 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,714,303, hereafter referred to as Li ‘303’. Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘336 discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that the substrate is provided on one rear side of the chassis so as to be connected to the display panel via a chip on film (COF). Li ‘303 teaches a display 1 having a substrate (5, 6) provided on one rear side of the chassis (figures 3 and 5-6) so as to be connected to the display panel via a chip on film (col. 4, lines 25-62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the display of Lee ‘336 so that substrate is provided on one rear side of the chassis so as to be connected to the display panel via a chip on film as taught by Li ‘303 in order to efficiently electrically connect the display panel to the main electronic control board of Lee ‘336. Regarding claim 11, the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the substrate 20 is provided on an upper rear side of the chassis 10 (figures 1-7), and wherein the support protrusion (12a, 12b) comprises: a support portion (12-1, 12-2) connected to the cover body 12; and a bending portion 12a, 12b that extends upward from the support portion (figures 3-7, bending portion extends upward and also leftward). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘336. Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘336 discloses the claimed invention except for the specific teaching that the chassis is made of metal. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the display of Lee ‘336 so that the chassis is made of metal since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using well known materials for manufacturing the display of Lee ‘336 based on cost, strength, size, weight etc. for optimally making the display of Lee ‘336. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim ‘487 discloses a display which includes mounting portions 60 for connecting a chassis 40 to a substrate 50 which is similar to applicant’s invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. M-F. 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, ABDULMAJEED Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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. /THOMAS M SEMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600298
CONVEYANCE INTERIOR PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604574
LIGHT SOURCE MODULE AND BACKLIGHT UNIT HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595892
ANTI-CONDENSATION PROTECTIVE CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584607
ILLUMINATION UNIT HAVING AN ANTIFOGGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582187
Hard Hat Lamp Attachment System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1200 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