Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/044,145

PART FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE COMPRISING AN OPACIFICATION COATING, ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHOD AND LUMINOUS DEVICE COMPRISING SAID PART

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 06, 2023
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
VALEO VISION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1229 granted / 1557 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1575
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1557 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In regard to claims 1-20, Applicant’s claims an “opacification coating” (claim 1, line 3) or a “thin iron-based layer … that is to be opacified” (claim 9, lines 4-6) wherein the opacification coating has “a colour in the 1976 CIE L*a*b* colour space defined by the L*, a* and b* parameters” (see claim 6, lines 1-4 and claim 19, lines 1-3). However, Applicant merely makes mention to the same limitations with respect to “the 1976 CIE L*a*b* colour space defined by the L*, a* and b* parameters “ in paragraph [0030] without giving in context as to what the 1976 CIE L*a*b* colour space defined by the L*, a* and b* parameters are. Clarification and/or further description is required such that one skilled in the relevant art would be able to carry out the claimed the invention including the claimed “opacification coating”. Claims 12-14 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 regard to claim 12, Applicant’s use of the term “preferably” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of the term should be avoided. In regard to claim 13, Applicant’s use of the term “preferably” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of the term should be avoided. In regard to claim 14, Applicant’s use of the term “preferably” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of the term should be avoided. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /STEVEN O DOUGLAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594872
Lockable Cargo Retaining Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594847
ELECTROMOTIVE LOCKING UNIT FOR AN ELECTRICAL CHARGING DEVICE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594871
Cargo Retaining System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588608
Mobile Forestry Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589856
LIQUID RETENTION DEVICE FOR EQUIPMENT CARRIED BY A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1557 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