Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/115,486

LIGHT MODULATING DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 28, 2023
Examiner
LEONG, NATHAN T
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dai Nippon Printing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
527 granted / 745 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 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 . 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 12 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 12 contains the limitation “the light modulating cell” which lacks proper antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear from the claim as written what “the light modulating cell” refers to and how it relates to the rest of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016043164 (herein WO ‘164, see attached). Per claim 1, WO ‘164 teaches a manufacturing method comprising preparing a first laminated body including a first glass sheet (16) and a second glass sheet (18), a second interlayer and light modulating cell (see abstract), both of which are laminated (see pages 1-2 of the attached translation), and adhering (bonding) both sides of a spacer to join a first glass sheet (16) and a second glass sheet (18). Per claims 2-3, WO ‘164 teaches bonding the glass plates and therefore the laminated bodies via sealant (see section [Multilayer glass 12]). Per claim 4, WO ‘164 teaches that laminated glass is composted of a single glass plate and an interlayer plate (see section [Multilayer glass 12]). Per claims 5-6, WO ‘164 teaches all the limitations of claim 2-4 above, additionally teaching that a heat ray reflective film is formed on the surface of the glass plate (see page 2). Per claims 7, 9-10, 13-15, WO ‘164 teaches several different optically transparent adhesives including urethane which is a resin. Per claim 8, WO ‘164 teaches inclusion of an optical film that reduces glare and reduces passage of external light (abstract). Per claim 11, WO ‘164 teaches that the film is placed atop the intermediate layer on the glass sheet (see pages 2-3). Per claim 12, WO ‘164 teaches a light modulating film (page 1) (interpreted as a light modulating cell, see 112, 2nd paragraph rejection above). Per claims 1-15, WO ‘164 teaches all the limitations and structures as claimed. However, in the case that WO ‘164 is unclear as to the specifics of which layers are bonded using the adhesive sealant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the resin sealant as disclosed by WO ‘164 to bond any interlayers or films as desired to the first and/or second glass sheet with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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. /NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590461
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584234
CASING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582778
SURFACE COATING LAYER FORMATION METHOD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576416
INTELLIGENT MARKING PAINT APPLICATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565706
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 745 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