Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/912,971

SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT COATING GLASS AND SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT COATING MATERIAL USING SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 20, 2022
Examiner
BOYD, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allow Rate
66 granted / 217 resolved
-34.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
239
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 217 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on October 3, 2025 have been entered and considered. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 1 – 6 are pending. In view of Applicant’s amendments, all previously set forth rejections have been withdrawn. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 6 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 Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO2012133217A1). Nakamura et al. is directed to a glass composition for sealing that has thermal expansion characteristics for sealing of a ceramic member (Abstract). As to claim 1, Nakamura et al. teach glass compositions such as composition circled below from Table 2 (page 20 of Japanese language WO document). PNG media_image1.png 419 603 media_image1.png Greyscale ZnO + SiO2 = 41.6 + 14.0 = 55.6 % Al2O3 = 4.7 % (when rounded to 1 significant figure = 5%) B2O3 = 22.0 % MgO = 17.4% The glass composition does not contain lead as shown by the components listed in the chart and the disclosure as a whole does not suggest or teach the inclusion of lead. Additionally, the general disclosure of Nakamura et al. teach glass compositions with the following components and ranges (pages 2 – 5 of English translation): Instant claims Nakamura et al. ZnO + SiO2 = 40 – 65 mol % SiO2: 14 to 21 mass% + ZnO: 29 To 51% by mass = 43 – 72% by mass SiO2 = usually 14 to 21 mass%, preferably 14.5 to 20 mass%, more preferably 15 to 19 mass% Al2O3 = usually 0 to 12% by mass, more preferably 1 to 10% by mass SiO2/ZnO = 0.5 – 2.0 (14 to 21 mass%)/(29 To 51 mass%) = 0.27 - 1.38 B2O3 = 7 – 25 mol % 17 to 24 mass% Al2O3 = 5 – 15 mol % 0 to 12 mass% MgO = 17 – 22 mol % MgO: 7 to 16% by mass As to claim 3, Nakamura et al. teach Al2O3/( ZnO + SiO2) = (4.7)/(41.6 + 14.0) = 4.7/55.6 % = 0.08 As to claim 5, Nakamura et al. teach it is preferable that the sealing material of the present invention contains a ceramic powder. The ratio of the ceramic powder to the total amount of the glass powder and the ceramic powder is preferably more than 0% by mass and 5% by mass or less (English translation portion, page 3, 4th to last paragraph on page). It should be noted that the compositional components in Nakamura et al. are all disclosed as % by mass while the instant claims require all components by mol %. The Examiner submits that the prior art ranges substantially overlap with the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nakamura et al., because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. As to claims 4 and 6, Nakamura et al. teach that the glass composition of the present invention preferably has a thermal expansion coefficient of 60 to 80 × 10 -7 / ° C. at 30 to 550 ° C. of the glass ceramics formed by firing (page 3 of translation, 5th paragraph from bottom of page). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass composition to include the claimed range. Nakamura et al. note that in order to adjust the strength and thermal expansion coefficient of the fired body obtained by firing the sealing material, it is preferable that the sealing material of the present invention contains a ceramic powder together with the glass powder made of the glass composition In this case, the ratio of the ceramic powder to the total amount of the glass powder and the ceramic powder is preferably more than 0% by mass and 5% by mass or less. The inclusion of such a ceramic powder makes it easy to adjust the strength and the thermal expansion coefficient of the fired body (composite of glass ceramic and ceramic powder) after firing (page 3 of translation, 4th paragraph from bottom of page). It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Conclusion 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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off. 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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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. /JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2022
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601107
ENVIRONMENTAL-FRIENDLY ARTIFICIAL LEATHER AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583189
BONDING FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE COMPOSITE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580175
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SECONDARY BATTERY AND SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570070
LAYERED BODY AND LAYERING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12531315
Unit Cell And Battery Cell Including The Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
30%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+50.3%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 217 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