Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/035,118

CERAMIC SWITCH TILE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 03, 2023
Examiner
SAMPLE, DAVID R
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITAT JUAME I
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 19 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 February 2026. 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. Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1, line 3, recites “one or more areas,” which encompasses a single conductive area. Claim 1 subsequently expressly requires that the areas are separated from each other. For the areas to be separated from each other, there must be more than one area. Therefore, the claim appears to require two or more areas, which is incompatible with the scenario where a single conductive area exists. Claim 2 has the same issue. The claims employ “selected between” for indicating a Markush group. The use of “between” implies that two of the items in the group need to be selected. Traditional Markush language is “selected from the group consisting of … and …” or “is … or….” See MPEP 2173.05(h). The claims employ improper Markush groups in the following locations: Claim 4, line 2; Claim 5, line 2; Claim 6, line 2; and Claim 8, line 2. Claim 7 and 9-10 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Posset (GB 2 060 895 A). Posset discloses a switch panel (i.e., switch tile). See the title. The substrate is glass (i.e., non-conductive ceramic). See the abstract. The switch includes a conductive oxide (2) and decorating enamel (3) and (4) (protective glazing) over portions of the conductive layer. See Figure 2, and page 4, lines 39-44. The decorating enamel leaves open portions for viewing the darker regions of the conductive oxide: PNG media_image1.png 430 614 media_image1.png Greyscale These portions correspond to the “connection section” which is not covered by the protective glazing. The limitation “intended to be connected to a capacitance variation measurement module (5), configured to control an electrical device to be switched,” is functional language. The structure of Posset is inherently capable of performing the function. As to claims 2 and 3, Posset teaches “at least one switch” which indicates one or more than one conductive area. See page 1, lines 4-6 and Figure 3. As to claim 7, Posset teaches the conductive oxide may be antinomy doped tin oxide. See page 2, lines 60-65. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posset (GB 2 060 895 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiu (US 2019/0382302 A1). Claims 4-6 define the starting materials for forming the non-conductive ceramic support. Once fired, the supports change their form into a fired ceramic in some manner. As such, the claims appear to be product by process claims in that they define an end product based upon the materials work upon to form it. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. The starting materials recited in claims 4-6 indicate the fired ceramic (i.e., glass) contains silica and alumina. Posset disclose the substrate is a chemically tempered glass (page 1, lines 60-65). Posset fails to disclose the glass contains silica and alumina. Xiu teaches a glass for use in chemical strengthening which comprises silica and alumina. See the abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the strengthened glass of Xiu as the glass of Posset. The rationale for doing so is it has been held to have employed a known material based upon its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posset (GB 2 060 895 A) as applied to claim 1 above. Posset teaches that the layer (3)(4) is formed of a decorative enamel. Posset fails to disclose the enamel is a ceramic frit. However, it was notoriously well known at the time of filing to have employed ceramic frits to form a decorative enamel. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-10 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. 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

May 03, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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