Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/527,821

STEREOSCOPIC EMBLEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2021
Examiner
BRIGGS, NATHANAEL R
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hayashi Telempu Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
811 granted / 1067 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1102
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
56.8%
+16.8% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, the phrase “, an adhesive layer that adheres” should be changed “, and an adhesive layer that adheres”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (KR101773991B1; translation previously submitted) in view of Kelley et al. (US 6,303,058). Regarding claim 1, Won discloses a stereoscopic emblem (see figure 3, for instance), comprising: a retroreflective sheeting (35, 37) in which a surface on one side where light is incident and emitted protrudes (area including A22) and a recess (including area A21) is formed on a surface on the other side facing the protruding surface on the one side; a cured resin (41; “The synthetic resin such as polyurethane, polyester, polyolefin, or polyacryl which forms the three-dimensional layer 41 may contain a curing agent”, see page 6 of the attached translation) provided in the recess; and an adhesive layer (45) provided on a side opposite to the retroreflective sheeting (35, 37) side with respect to the cured resin, wherein the recess of the retroreflective sheeting has a flat bottom portion (with area A21, see figure 3). However, Won does not expressly disclose wherein the stereoscopic emblem further comprises a thermoplastic resin layer stacked between the retroreflective sheeting and the cured resin, and an adhesive layer that adheres the retroreflective sheeting and the thermoplastic resin layer. Kelley discloses a stereoscopic emblem (see figure 1, for instance), comprising a thermoplastic resin layer (62, column 7, lines 5-8: “The conformance layer can also be a non-woven fibrous web or polymers such as, for example, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyurethane.”) stacked between the retroreflective sheeting (61, 61b) and the cured resin (65), and an adhesive layer (“adhesive layer (not shown)”, column 4, lines 10-12) that adheres the retroreflective sheeting (61, 61b) and the thermoplastic resin layer (62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermoplastic resin layer as Kelley in the retroreflective sheet of Won. The motivation for doing so would have been to help to keep the base sheet in the desired position until further processing steps while adding protection and flexibility to the optical laminate, as taught by Kelley (column 5, lines 65-67; column 6, lines 62-65; column 7, lines 22-27). Regarding claim 4, Won in view of Kelley discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 1, the device further comprising: a surface protective layer (Kelley 69) stacked on a side of the retroreflective sheeting (Kelley 61, 61b) opposite to a side of the retroreflective sheeting which is adhered to the thermoplastic resin layer (Kelley 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the protective coating as Kelley in the retroreflective sheet of Won. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide provides abrasion and dirt resistance to the laminate, as taught by Kelley (column 10, lines 66-67). Regarding claim 5, Won in view of Kelley discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic resin layer (Kelley 62) has an outline conforming to the recess (area A21) of the retroreflective sheeting (61, Kelley fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Won in view of Kelley discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 4, further comprising: an adhesive layer (Kelley 70) that adheres the retroreflective sheeting (Kelley 61, 61b) and the surface protective layer (Kelley 69). Regarding claim 9, Won in view of Kelley discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 7. However, although Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein the adhesive layer (Kelley “adhesive layer (not shown)”; column 4, lines 10-12) that adheres the retroreflective sheet (Kelley 61, 61b) to the thermoplastic resin layer (Kelley 62) and the adhesive layer (Kelley 70) that adheres the retroreflective sheet (Kelley 61, 61b) to the surface protective layer (Kelley 69) are made of the same material, Kelley discloses wherein the material of adhesive 70 can be made of aliphatic polyurethane, aliphatic polyurea acrylic, polyester, vinyl, polyethylene copolymer, or alkyd protective layers (see column 4, lines 42-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use matching materials for the adhesive layer (70) that adheres the protective layer to the retroreflective sheet, and also for the adhesive layer (not shown, column 4, lines 10-11) that adheres the retroreflective layer to the thermoplastic resin layer. The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize production costs, simplify manufacturing method, while also apply materials that are light transmissible, resistant to dirt build-up, flexible enough to conform to various surface geometries, and typically do not discolor with exposure to ultraviolet light, as taught by Kelley (column, lines 38-42) Regarding claim 10, Won in view of discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 1, wherein the retroreflective sheet (including 35) includes a side portion (where the top and bottom portions connect at A22 / A21) that is connected to a periphery of the bottom portion and extends in a direction away from the bottom portion toward the outside of the bottom portion as it proceeds in the thickness direction of the bottom portion. However, Won does not expressly disclose wherein in a cross section perpendicular to the in-plane direction of each of the bottom portion and the side portion, an angle between a straight line along the thickness direction of the bottom portion and the in-plane direction of the side portion is greater than 0° and less than 15°. Kelley discloses a stereoscopic emblem (see figures 1-2, for instance), wherein in a cross section perpendicular to the in-plane direction of each of the bottom portion (low portion of 61) and the side portion (vertical portions of 61), an angle between a straight line along the thickness direction of the bottom portion and the in-plane direction of the side portion is greater than 0° and less than 15° (column 1, lines 1-2; column 2, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the side and bottom portion geometry as Kelley in the retroreflective sheet of Won. The motivation for doing so would have been so as to exhibit surprisingly effective retroreflective properties, especially at very high entrance angles, as taught by Jacobs (column 2, lines 1-3). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of Kelley, and in further view of Jacobs et al. (US 5,941,655). Regarding claim 8, Won in view of Kelley discloses the stereoscopic emblem according to claim 4, wherein a thickness of the surface protective layer (Won 31) is 60 µm or more and 120 µm or less (Kelley column 10, lines 60-65). However, Won in view of Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer is 170 um or more and 230 um or less. Jacobs discloses a stereoscopic emblem (see figure 3, for instance), wherein a thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer (24) is 170 um or more and 230 um or less (column 9, lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermoplastic resin with the specific thickness as Jacobs between the retroreflective sheeting and the cured resin in Won. The motivation for doing so would have been so as not to substantially inhibit conformability of the inventive article to the substrate, as taught by Jacobs (column 9, lines 38-42). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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. /NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 12/9/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601865
SPLIT NVIS FILTER DESIGN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591124
MICROSCOPE OPTICAL SYSTEM, MICROSCOPE DEVICE, AND IMAGE FORMATION LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591138
Optical Device For AR Glasses
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12567831
ENERGY HARVESTING COMPONENT FOR AN OPTICAL DEVICE HAVING AN ILLUMINATION SOURCE EMITTING UNUSED LIGHT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559031
UTV SIDE MIRROR MOUNTING AND ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 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