Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/483,017

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRINTING ON A SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 09, 2023
Examiner
O'HARA, BRIAN M
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Boeing Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
447 granted / 594 resolved
+23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 594 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan (US 7266917 B2). Regarding Claims 1-4, Ryan discloses: 1. A substrate for receiving a print layer, the substrate comprising: a reinforcement layer (38+40+42+44+46) having a first surface (outer surface of 38) and a second surface (outer surface of 46) opposite from the first surface, wherein one or both of the first surface or the second surface is textured (“includes a slight texture which is maintained by the resins in the pre-preg fiberglass layers 46 and 44”; Col 4 Line 60); and a first coating layer (34) bonded (via 36) to the first surface of the reinforcement layer, wherein the first coating layer is configured to receive and retain the print layer (52), and wherein the substrate is configured to be secured (“Each stowage bin 161-16n includes an associated bin door 181-18n”; Col 3 Line 21) to a component (16). 2. The substrate of claim 1, further comprising a second coating layer (48) bonded (“layers cure”; Col 4 Line 61) coupled to the second surface of the reinforcement layer. 3. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the component is within an internal cabin (12) of an aircraft. 4. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the first coating layer is a flame-retardant (“PVF films 50 and 54 form a fireworthy material”’ Col 5 Line 46), ink-receptive (“UV curable ink to be cured virtually immediately after being deposited on the Tedlar PVF films 50 or 54”; Col 5 Line 50) coating. Regarding Claims 6-8, Ryan discloses: 6. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer comprises fibers (“pre-preg fiberglass layer 38”; Col 4 Line 28) and wherein the reinforcement layer is flame-retardant (fiberglass is not flammable). 7. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer is flame-retardant (fiberglass is flame retardent). 8. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer is formed of fiberglass (“pre-preg fiberglass layer 38”; Col 4 Line 28). Regarding Claims 10-13, Ryan discloses: 10. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the print layer comprises ink configured to be cured by ultraviolet (UV) light (“(UV) curable”; Col 5 Line 35). 11. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the print layer comprises a printed textured surface (50a). 12. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the print layer is applied to the substrate before the substrate is secured to the component (before door is attached). 13. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the print layer is applied to the substrate after the substrate is secured to the component (when new mural is created and door is removed and replaced; “laminate panel 100 to be easily and quickly removed by the application of heat”; Col 7 Line 6). Regarding Claim 20, Ryan discloses 20. An aircraft comprising: an internal cabin (12); a component (bins 16) within the internal cabin; a substrate (18) coupled to the component, the substrate comprising: a reinforcement layer (38+40+42+44+46) having a first surface (outer surface of 38) and a second surface (outer surface of 46) opposite from the first surface, wherein one or both of the first surface or the second surface is textured (the entire component has a texture since the fiberglass creates weaves, “includes a slight texture which is maintained by the resins in the pre-preg fiberglass layers 46 and 44”; Col 4 Line 60), wherein the reinforcement layer comprises fibers (“pre-preg fiberglass layer 38”; Col 4 Line 28), and wherein the reinforcement layer is flame-retardant (fiberglass is inherently fire retardant); a first coating layer (34) bonded (“layers cure”; Col 4 Line 61) to the first surface of the reinforcement layer, wherein the first coating layer is a first flame-retardant (“PVF films 50 and 54 form a fireworthy material”’ Col 5 Line 46), ink-receptive coating (“UV curable ink to be cured virtually immediately after being deposited on the Tedlar PVF films 50 or 54”; Col 5 Line 50); and a second coating layer (48) bonded (“layers cure”; Col 4 Line 61) to the second surface of the reinforcement layer, wherein the second coating layer is a second flame-retardant, ink-receptive coating (48 has the same Tedlar PVF material and so has the same properties as the first coating layer) ; and a print layer (52) coupled to the first coating layer, wherein the print layer comprises ink cured by ultraviolet (UV) light (“(UV) curable”; Col 5 Line 35), and wherein the print layer comprises a printed textured surface (50a). Regarding Claims 14-19, Ryan further discloses a method of assembling the substrate including: “ink layer 52 is deposited by a suitable printer, and more preferably by a digital ink jet printer, directly on the Tedlar PVF film 50”; Col 5 Line 31 and “cure during the manufacturing process”; Col 4 Line 61, meeting the limitations of the method. 21. (New) The substrate of claim 1, wherein both the first surface (outer surface of 38) and the second surface (outer surface of 46) are textured (“includes a slight texture which is maintained by the resins in the pre-preg fiberglass layers 46 and 44”; Col 4 Line 60). Each of layers 38, 40, 44, and 46 are pre-preg fiberglass, so each layer is textured; i.e. both the outer surface of 38 and 46 are textured. 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 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riebel (US 2012/0291377 A1). Riebel discloses a similar decorative door (see Riebel’s claim 12), which further includes: 5. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the first coating layer comprises an intumescent material (“an intumescent layer”; Para [0059]). 9. The substrate of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement layer comprises a metal mesh (“rigid substrates may include metal”; Para [0052]). At the time of invention it would have been obvious to include the metal and intumescent layers of Riebel in the substrate of Ryan. The motivation for doing so would have been to use biolaminate materials to reduce hazardous materials as taught by the background section of Riebel. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 6 that the Ryan reference does not disclose a textured reinforcement layer because element 48 of Ryan is a PVF inside surface of a bin door. This argument is not seen to be commensurate with the rejection of the independent claims. Element 48 is not equated to a reinforcement layer. Elements 38-46 are used as reinforcement layers which are prepreg fiberglass and honeycomb. Most specifically 38 and 46 are used since they are the outer layers of the reinforcement layer. As stated in the rejection dated 12/15/2025, these layers carry a texture. Thus the Ryan reference meets the claim limitations. On Page 7, applicant states that the limitations of Claim 9 are not met because Riebel only recites a metal. However, the Reibel reference is being applied to the honeycomb core (mesh) of the Ryan reference. Thus the combination meets the claim limitations. 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 BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern. 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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. /BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2023
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570398
MULTIPLE FLIGHT MODE AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURES AND CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552526
ROTOR CONTROL FOR A CONVERTIBLE AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552291
SAFETY SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545431
HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545439
TILT DRIVE FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE VECTORING
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
75%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+20.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 594 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