Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/638,932

LAMINATED GLAZING HAVING HOLOGRAPHIC FILM LAMINATED THEREIN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2022
Examiner
SAMPLE, DAVID R
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arc Ii Glass America Inc.
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
506 granted / 636 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
670
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 636 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 . Introduction Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The response by applicants filed 17 November 2025 is sufficient to overcome all of the rejections made in the previous action. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US 2019/0366691 A1) as evidenced by Dixit et al. (“3D-printed miniaturized fluidic tools in chemistry and biology,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 106 (2018) 37-52). Iwomoto et al. teaches a laminate structure corresponding to claim 1 as follows: Claim 1 Relevant disclosure of Iwomoto et al. and location: A laminated glazing, comprising: Provided is an interlayer film for laminated glass (abstract) a first glass sheet; Laminated glass 31 shown in FIG. 12 includes a first lamination glass member 21 (paragraph [0243]) a first interlayer; The interlayer film 11 is provided with … a second layer 2 …. (paragraph [0062]) a photopolymer film; The interlayer film 11 is provided with a first layer 1 …. (Paragraph [0062]) It is preferred that the first layer contain a thermoplastic resin (hereinafter, sometimes described as a thermoplastic resin (1)), or contain a cured product of a photocurable compound (paragraph [0123]) a second interlayer; The interlayer film 11 is provided with … a third layer 3. a second glass sheet, Laminated glass 31 shown in FIG. 12 includes … a second lamination glass member 22 (paragraph [0243]) wherein a total thickness of the second glass sheet and the second interlayer is from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, wherein the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet are the only glass components of the laminated glazing and each of the first interlayer, the photopolymer film, and the second interlayer are disposed between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet [The glass laminate in Figures 1 and 12 of Iwamoto et al. has these features] Claim 1 recites a” photopolymer” film whereas Iwamoto et al. teaches a “photocurable” resin layer. “Photopolymer” is defined as “the class of materials which when exposed to specific wavelength of light undergo polymerization.” See page 41, section 3.2.2.1 of Dixit et al. This appears to be the same as a photocurable resin because “photo” indicates some form of light and “curable” indicates polymerization. Iwamoto et al. teaches a total thickness for the interlayer of 0.1 mm to 3mm. See paragraph [0234]. The third layer (3) may have a thickness of 0.3 times the thickness of the interlayer or more, and 0.9 time the thickness of the interlayer or less. See paragraph [0236]. Multiplying these ranges, one arrives at a range for the third layer thickness of 0.03 mm to 2.7 mm. Iwamoto et al. teaches each of the glass members has a thickness of 1 mm to 5 mm. See paragraph [0253]. Thus, Iwamoto et al. suggests a total thickness of the second glass and third layer of 1.03 mm to 7.7 mm. These teachings result in a second glass lamination member (22) (i.e., second glass) thickness, a third layer (i.e., second interlayer), and total thickness of the glass sheet (22) and third layer (3) which overlap the ranges recited in claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie evidence. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. As to claim 13, the laminate shown in Figures 1 and 12 of Iwamoto et al. shows third layer (3) formed on the second glass (22) and the first layer (1). As to claim 16, Iwamoto et al. discloses the laminated is employed as an automotive glazing in paragraph [0011]. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US 2019/0366691 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and, and further in view Cleary et al. (US 2012/0328843 A1). Iwamoto et al. renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons recited above. The references fail to discuss a relationship between the thicknesses of the two glass substrates. Cleary et al. teaches an automotive glazing having an outer glass sheet with a thickness of less than 1 mm, and an inner glass sheet having a thickness of less than 2.5 mm. See the abstract. In all of the exemplified embodiments, the internal glass sheet is thicker than the external glass sheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glass laminate of Iwamoto et al. with a thicker internal glass sheet, and thinner external sheet as suggested by Cleary et al. The structure of Cleary et al. results in a laminate of that can withstand high impacts while being lighter weight. See paragraph [0051] of Cleary et al. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have overcome the rejections made in the previous action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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. /David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2022
Application Filed
May 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 08, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583206
ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING A GLASS COMPONENT WITH CRACK HINDERING INTERNAL STRESS REGIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577170
ZIRCONIA SINTERED BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581730
CARRIER SUBSTRATE, LAMINATE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577176
OVERLAY COATING RESISTANT TO MOLTEN CALCIUM-MAGNESIUM-ALUMINO-SILICATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570578
Artificial Cement-Based Ultra-High-Performance Stone
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 636 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