Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/919,621

CRYSTALLIZED GLASS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 18, 2022
Examiner
AUER, LAURA A
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
227 granted / 466 resolved
-16.3% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
512
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.8%
+14.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 466 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 112 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. Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 requires the crystallized glass has precipitated therein one or more kinds of crystals selected from a group that includes zirconia. Note that claim 3 depends from claim 1 and that claim 1 already requires having zirconia crystals precipitated. As such, it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the crystals listed in claim 3 in addition to the zirconia of claim 1 or in the alternative since claim 3 also lists zirconia as a type of crystal. 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. (US 2016/0280589). Beall discloses a glass-based material comprising a glass phase and a second phase that is different from and is dispersed in the glass phase, see abstract. The second phase may comprise a crystalline or nanocrystalline phase and may include anorthite, see abstract and [0038]. The glass-based material has a transmittance of at least about 88% over a visible spectrum ranging from about 400 nm to about 700 nm, see abstract. Additionally, the reference discloses the crystalline phase may include from about 10 volume % to about 98 volume % of the glass-based material [0037]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed November 3, 2025, with respect to 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. Note that claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 based on its dependency from amended claim 1, see above discussion. Regarding claim 9, Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 9 should be withdrawn based on its dependency from claim 1; however, claim 9 does not depend from claim 1. As such, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection. 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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST. 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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. /LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600675
CERAMIC MATERIAL FOR THERMAL BARRIER COATING AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589935
HEAT-RESISTANT CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580128
DIELECTRIC COMPOSITION AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565026
FIRE RESISTANT VACUUM INSULATING GLAZING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566286
FILTER FOR GLASS CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
49%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 466 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