Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/764,466

OPTICAL BIAXIALLY STRETCHED PLASTIC FILM, POLARIZING PLATE, IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE, AND METHOD OF SELECTING OPTICAL BIAXIALLY STRETCHED PLASTIC FILM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 28, 2022
Examiner
CARRUTH, JENNIFER DOAK
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dai Nippon Printing Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

77%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 914 resolved
Without
With
+-6.4%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 pending
933
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§112
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 . Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/25/2025 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. 3. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 4. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. In claim 11, lines 31-32, “the first measurement region” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 11, line 33, the use of the language “luminance measurement results” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner whether the above mentioned language is referring to the luminance measurement results recited in claim 11, line 16 or to some other luminance measurement results. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. In claim 11, line 34, “the selected horizontal row” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 11, line 52, “the slow axis directions” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 11, line 53, the use of the language “five points” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner whether the above mentioned language is referring to the five points in claim 11, line 48 or to some other five points. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. Claims 12-20 are inherently indefinite due to their dependency. 5. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 6. Claim 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 7. 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. 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY D SHAFER whose telephone number is (571)272-2320. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 11:00-7:30. 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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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. RDS December 31, 2025 /RICKY D SHAFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12591122
APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR HIGH-SPEED LASER SCANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587173
SIGNAL TRANSCEIVER, DIE AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572022
COMPACT OPTICAL ENGINE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571996
IMAGING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558977
WIRELESS CHARGING SYSTEM FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate 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
77%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (-6.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 914 resolved cases by this examiner