Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/371,206

Radiation-Curable Hard Coating Composition

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Priority
Aug 08, 2018 — EU 18306087.0 +1 more
Examiner
WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Essilor International
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
572 granted / 1111 resolved
-13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1111 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 . Status of Application Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 15-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-14, 20 and 21 are presented for examination. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/12/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14, 20 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites that the dispersion comprises 50% silica dispersed in either ethoxylated pentaerythritol tetraacrylate or trimethylol propane triacrylate. However, parent claim 1 requires that the polyfunctional acrylate is present in less than 30 parts by weight of the dispersion. Therefore, claim 12 actually broadens the parent claim as the parent claim limits the dispersion to comprise no more than 30% of polyfunctional acrylate monomers. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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. 2. Claims 1-14, 20 and 21 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. Claim 1 recites that the dispersion comprises less than or equal to 30 parts by weight of polyfunctional acrylate monomers. However, this is not supported by the original disclosure. Rather, the original disclosure recites that the dispersion comprises 50 parts by weight of polyfunctional acrylate monomers (see Examples and Tables in Applicant’s specification). Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-14, 20 and 21 depend from claim 1 and fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons. The Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “wherein the photocurable coating composition comprises less than or equal to 30 parts by weight of polyfunctional acrylate monomers” which is also then consistent with dependent claim 12. This change correlates the amount of polyfunctional acrylate monomers to the entire photocurable composition rather than just the parts by weight in the dispersion which is not supported by the original disclosure. Conclusion Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 15-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-14, 20 and 21 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /ROBERT S WALTERS JR/ August 21, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 17, 2026
Response Filed
May 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734470
PREPARATION METHOD OF BISMUTH ION FILTER MEMBRANE AND APPLICATION THEREOF
1y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12723172
COATING METHOD OF LONG-CHAIN ENTANGLED PDMS GEL WITH SUSTAINABLE SELF-REPLENISHMENT OF LUBRICATING LAYER
1y 4m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12716007
METHOD FOR MAKING XUAN FLANNELETTE
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12710097
SLICK DURABLE SEAL
3y 6m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12697413
METHOD FOR COATING IMPLANT USING HEAT
4y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.4%)
3y 6m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1111 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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