Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/291,370

OPTICAL LAMINATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, SMART WINDOW COMPRISING SAME, AND VEHICLE AND BUILDING WINDOWS AND DOORS USING SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
LAVARIAS, ARNEL C
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dongwoo Fine-Chem Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
655 granted / 825 resolved
+11.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
847
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 825 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 . Response to Amendment The amendments to the abstract and specification of the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed 1/23/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. The amendments to Claims 16-17 in the preliminary amendment filed 1/23/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The originally filed drawings were received on 1/23/2024. The replacement drawings were received on 1/23/2024. These drawings are acceptable. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Abstract, line 1- ‘The present invention relates to a’ should read ‘A’ Abstract, line 3- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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. Claims 14, 16 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. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: Claim 16 fails to positively recite any active process or method steps. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13, 15, 17-19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a variable transmittance optical stack as generally set forth in Claim 1, the stack including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 1, an in-plane retardation value of the retardation layer ranges from 230 to 280nm, and an optical axis of the retardation layer has a contained angle ranging from 43° to 47°, with respect to an alignment axis of the liquid crystal layer. Claims 2-13, 15, 17-19 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 14, 16 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2016-099454 A to Iwamoto. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2021/0109392 A1 to Mizusaki. TW 200815875 A to Fukuda. CN 100383625 C to Chang. JP WO2018-221413 A to 齊藤 之人. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. ARNEL C. LAVARIAS Primary Examiner Group Art Unit 2872 1/14/2026 /ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600936
IMAGE CAPTURING DEVICE, IMAGE CAPTURING SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601902
HIGH EFFECTIVE REFRACTIVE INDEX MATERIALS FOR ULTRA-HIGH RESOLUTION ILLUMINATION NANOSCOPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593834
OPTICALLY STRUCTURED ELEMENT FOR A BIRD PROTECTION GLASS, OPTICAL SYSTEM AND USE OF THE OPTICALLY STRUCTURED ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579919
HOLOGRAPHICALLY DISPLAYING THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566337
OPTICAL UNIT WITH SHAKE CORRECTION FUNCTION
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
79%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-0.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 825 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