Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/291,771

TRANSPARENT HEAT-RESISTANT LAMINATED FILM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
DILLON, DANIEL P
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyobo Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 25% of cases
25%
Career Allow Rate
64 granted / 258 resolved
-40.2% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
66.7%
+26.7% vs TC avg
§102
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 258 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024, 03/08/2024, 10/08/2025 and 01/30/2026 has been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebara et al. (WO 2018/225825). Regarding claim 1, Ebara teaches a resin thin film laminate which serves as a substrate for a flexible device which is a transparent hear resistant laminate (“a transparent heat-resistant laminate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The laminated comprise a release layer (“layer a”) and a resin thin film (“layer b”) in contact with each other which are both formed form polyimides (“layer a: a layer that comprises a polyimide composition”) (Paragraph [0014]-[0015]). The release layer does not comprise silicon dioxide particles and the resin thin film does contain silicon dioxide particles (“layer b: a layer that contains a polyimide composition and has a higher inorganic filler content that the layer a”) (Paragraph [0011]). Furthermore, a fine structure may be formed on the release layer in order to further enhance adhesion to the resin thin film (“an intermingled layer is present at an interface between the layer a and the layer b”) (Paragraph [0079]). Ebara is silent with respect to the thickness of the intermediate layer being 3 microns or more. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the thickness of the intermediate layer to be overlapping with 3 microns or more in order to enhance the adhesion between the release layer and the resin thin film as discussed above. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 2, Ebara teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the release layer, equivalent to layer a, does not comprise silicon dioxide particles. Regarding claim 3, Ebara teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the resin thin film, equivalent to layer b, contains silicon dioxide particles. The resin thin film is formed with a polyamide mixed with silicon dioxide particles at a ratio of 10:1 to 1:10 by mass and the solids content is 0.5 to 30% by mass (Paragraph [0070]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting mass percentage of silica dioxide particles is at least 0.05% by mass or greater. Regarding claim 4, Ebara teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The thickness of the resin thin film layer is from 5 to 50 microns and the thicknes of the release layer is from 1 nm to 200 microns resulting in a total thicknes from 5 microns to 250 microns (Paragraphs [0070]; [0080]). Regarding claim 5, Ebara teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the release layer and the resin thin film layers are both formed from a polyimide resin composition. Regarding claim 6, Ebara teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As shown in figure 7, the laminates only include the release layer, the resin thin film layer and the interface between the two (Paragraph [0098]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V 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. /DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12558705
POLYMER FILM USING CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION USING SULFUR AS INITIATOR (SCVD), METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME AND APPARATUS FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12529185
ARTIFICIAL LEATHER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12515439
ELASTIC LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12516410
DIELECTRIC FILLED NANOSTRUCTURED SILICA SUBSTRATE FOR FLAT OPTICAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12496812
A VISIBLE PART HAVING A LAYER STRUCTURE FOR AN OPERATING PART OR A DECORATIVE TRIM WITH BETTER PROTECTION AS A RESULT OF A PROTECTIVE PAINT COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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
25%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+29.2%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 258 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