Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/359,680

VISUALLY ENCODED FOIL TAPE ROLL FOR GLASS FOILING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
Art Unit
1788
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
645 granted / 1141 resolved
-8.5% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1192
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1141 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 . Withdrawn Rejections Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated February 26, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments. 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 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretson et al. (USPN 2,693,918) in view of Hoogstoel (USPN 3,392,899). Bretson et al. disclose a visually encoded tape roll (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 - 22), comprising: a tape roll core (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 - 22); the tape having a length dimension, a width dimension that is substantially less than the length dimension, and a thickness dimension that is substantially less than the width dimension (Figure 1; Column 3, lines 66 – 77); and the tape roll core displaying, on at least a radial inner ring surface and annular side surfaces thereof, a non-alphanumeric visual encoding comprising a human visible color extending across the entirety of the radial inner ring surface and the annular side surfaces, the color being selected to uniquely identify the width dimension of the tape and distinguish the tape roll from other tape rolls that comprise tape having different width dimensions and tape roll cores displaying different non-alphanumeric visual encodings selected to uniquely identify the different tape width dimensions (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22, wherein the indicia may be any printed matter, including dimensions and the color may be any desired color. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. No patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate MPEP 2112.01 (III)) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 2, the tape roll also displays alphanumeric tape width dimension identifying information (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22, wherein the indicia may be any printed matter, including dimensions. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. No patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate MPEP 2112.01 (III)). Regarding claim 3, set comprising a plurality of the visually encoded tape roll of claim 1, wherein the tape of each tape roll in the set has a unique tape width dimension that differs from the tape width dimension of other tape rolls in the set, and wherein the tape roll core of each tape roll core in the set has a unique non-alphanumeric encoding that differs from the non-alphanumeric encoding of other tape roll cores in the set (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22, wherein the indicia may be any printed matter, including dimensions. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. No patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate MPEP 2112.01 (III)). For claim 5, wherein the tape roll core comprises a molded article having a characteristic tape roll core color that provides the non-alphanumeric visual encoding, the characteristic tape roll color being imparted by a colored molded material that forms the entirety of the tape roll core and displays the non-alphanumeric visual encoding over its entire visible surface (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22). In claim 6, the tape roll core comprises a molded polymer article whose characteristic tape roll core color is imparted by a colored molded polymer that forms the entirety of the tape roll core (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22). In claim 7, the tape roll core comprises a ring-shaped disk member having an outer ring surface on which the foil tape is wound, an inner ring surface defining a central bore, and a pair of annular side surfaces extending radially between the outer ring surface and the inner ring surface, the annular side surfaces being spaced apart from each other to define an axial thickness of the ring-shaped disk member that corresponds to the foil tape width dimension (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of core, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.). With regard to claim 8, the annular side surfaces of the ring-shaped disk member comprise a radial dimension of not less than substantially 1/8 inches that is visible as a colored ring when the tape roll is viewed from either side thereof (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of core, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.). As in claim 9, the tape roll core has an outside diameter of not more than substantially 1 inch and the tape roll has an outside diameter of not more than substantially 2.5-3.5 inches so that it can be held by an adult human hand while dispensing the foil tape onto a glass edge (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of core, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.). However, Bretson et al. fails to disclose a foil tape roll for glass foiling, a quantity of flexible metallic foil tape wound around the tape roll core; the foil tape comprising a metal foil layer, an adhesive layer on one side of the metal foil layer, and a peelable adhesive backing layer disposed on the adhesive layer; the foil tape width dimension corresponding to an edge thickness of a glass edge onto which the foil tape is to be applied and being sufficient such that the foil tape may cover the glass edge and wrap around adjacent side surfaces of the glass piece by a desired amount, and set of three of the visually encoded foil tape roll of claim 1, comprising: a first visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 1/8 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 3/16 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 3/16 inch foil width dimension; a second visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 5/32 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 7/32 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 7/32 inch foil width dimension; and a third visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 3/16 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 1/4 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 1/4 inch foil width dimension. Hoogstoel teaches a foil tape roll for glass foiling (Column 2, lines 25 – 34; Figures; Abstract), a quantity of flexible metallic foil tape wound around the tape roll core (Figures; Abstract); the foil tape comprising a metal foil layer, an adhesive layer on one side of the metal foil layer, and a peelable adhesive backing layer disposed on the adhesive layer (Figures; Column 2, lines 8 – 52); and the foil tape width dimension corresponding to an edge thickness of a glass edge onto which the foil tape is to be applied and being sufficient such that the foil tape may cover the glass edge and wrap around adjacent side surfaces of the glass piece by a desired amount (Column 3, lines 6 – 17) for the purpose of having a roll tape for making leaded articles (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a metallic foil tape with an adhesive layer and a backing in Bretson et al. in order to have a roll tape for making leaded articles as taught by Hoogstoel. With regard to the limitation of “a set of three of the visually encoded foil tape roll of claim 1, comprising: a first visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 1/8 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 3/16 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 3/16 inch foil width dimension; a second visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 5/32 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 7/32 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 7/32 inch foil width dimension; and a third visually encoded foil tape roll comprising a quantity of foil tape for application on a glass edge whose edge thickness is 3/16 inches, and having a foil width dimension of 1/4 inches and a non-alphanumeric encoding that uniquely identifies the 1/4 inch foil width dimension”, Bretson et al. disclose a visually encoded tape roll (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 - 22), comprising: a tape roll core (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 - 22); the tape having a length dimension, a width dimension that is substantially less than the length dimension, and a thickness dimension that is substantially less than the width dimension (Figure 1; Column 3, lines 66 – 77); and the tape roll core displaying, on at least a radial inner ring surface and annular side surfaces thereof, a non-alphanumeric visual encoding comprising a human visible color extending across the entirety of the radial inner ring surface and the annular side surfaces, the color being selected to uniquely identify the width dimension of the tape and distinguish the tape roll from other tape rolls that comprise tape having different width dimensions and tape roll cores displaying different non-alphanumeric visual encodings selected to uniquely identify the different tape width dimensions (Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22, wherein the indicia may be any printed matter, including dimensions and the color may be any desired color. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. No patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate MPEP 2112.01 (III)). Hoogstoel clearly teaches a foil tape roll for glass foiling (Column 2, lines 25 – 34; Figures; Abstract), a quantity of flexible metallic foil tape wound around the tape roll core (Figures; Abstract); the foil tape comprising a metal foil layer, an adhesive layer on one side of the metal foil layer, and a peelable adhesive backing layer disposed on the adhesive layer (Figures; Column 2, lines 8 – 52); and the foil tape width dimension corresponding to an edge thickness of a glass edge onto which the foil tape is to be applied and being sufficient such that the foil tape may cover the glass edge and wrap around adjacent side surfaces of the glass piece by a desired amount (Column 3, lines 6 – 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a set of tapes with different widths on cores that identify the width since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of width of tape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the newly presented rejections in view of Bretson et al., discloses a plastic molded tape core that may be colored with pigments Figures; Column 3, lines 66 – 77; Column 5, lines 7 – 22. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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. /Patricia L. Nordmeyer/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1788 /pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577436
EMBOSSING OR DEBOSSING OF A LABEL SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12557867
ADHESIVE MOUNTABLE STACK OF REMOVABLE LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552130
TRANSPARENT SOLDER MASK PROTECTION FILM, METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547210
TAPE MEMBER AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548474
LABEL WITH STAND-UP MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+37.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1141 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month