Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/494,981

WINDOW GLARE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
DANIELS, JASON S
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
GM Global Technology Operations LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
961 granted / 1119 resolved
+33.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1145
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1119 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 13, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GM global (DE 10 2009 031 042; applicant cited). Regarding Claim 1, GM discloses a first display 4 configured to irradiate light towards a driver reference position within the vehicle compartment (Fig. 1); and a first micro-louver structure 6 disposed on the first display configured to reduce an angle range of light from the first display passing therethrough and to irradiate reduced angle light (angle located between boundaries 10 and 11; Fig. 1). Regarding Claims 2 and 5, the micro-louver structure 6 allows light to be irradiated in multiple different directions having separate axis in the range 9 between the limits 10 and 11 (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 3, the first direction of light 5 may be perpendicular to the display 4 (Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 4, the micro-louver 6 is on a front edge of the display 4. Regarding Claim 6, the first portion is disposed at a center of the first display, the second portion of the first micro-louver structure is disposed on an edge of the first display (top edge), and the third portion of the first micro-louver structure is disposed between the first portion and the second portion on the first display (see Fig. 2; lines 32; multiple directions of light dissemination come from the micro-louver 6 including center, upper and lower positions). Regarding Claim 7, the display is an instrument panel display (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0001). Regarding Claim 13, GM includes a polarization structure 23, 25 formed on the first display. Regarding Claims 14 and 18, the polarization structure 23, 25 transmits horizontally polarized light 26 (Fig. 2) while restricting vertically polarized light from passing therethrough. Regarding Claim 19, GM discloses a display 4 configured to irradiate light towards a driver reference position within the vehicle compartment; and a polarization structure 23, 25 disposed on the display that transmits horizontally polarized light 26 while restricting vertically polarized light from passing therethrough. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 8-12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GM as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 12,397,623). Regarding Claims 8 and 11, GM discloses the use of a display, but is unclear as if it is an infotainment display. Han discloses an infotainment system display 1 configured to irradiate light towards the driver reference position (Fig. 1); a micro-louver structure 200 disposed on the infotainment system display and configured to reduce an angle range of light from the infotainment system display passing therethrough. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the infotainment system of Han with the instrument panel display of GM in order to have a fully immersive and electronic display system available for the operator and passengers, and to have that combined system be shielded for directional light radiation as to ensure the driver only received the information they needed and the passenger received the information desired. Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Zhu discloses the use of a driver’s side window and infotainment display, GM discloses the display is configured to irradiate light towards both the driver reference position and a passenger reference position within the vehicle compartment, and wherein the first micro-louver structure 6 is structured such that none of the reduced angle light irradiated thereby is incident on the driver side window (see translation, paragraph 0001-0003; light is only radiated towards the passenger/driver and not towards the side so as to prevent reflections). Regarding Claims 10 and 12, the combination of GM and Zhu discloses an instrument panel display (GM) and an infotainment system display (Zhu). Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Zhu discloses a driver side window, and an anti-reflective structure 325 formed on the driver side window. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GM Global in view of Han (US 2024/0142773) and further in view of Zhu. GM Global discloses an instrument panel display 4 configured to irradiate light towards a driver reference position; a first micro-louver structure 6 disposed on the instrument panel display and configured to reduce an angle range of light from the instrument panel display passing therethrough; a first polarization structure 23 disposed on the instrument panel display and configured to transmit horizontally polarized light 26 while restricting vertically polarized light from passing therethrough. It is unclear if GM discloses the use of an infotainment display separate from the instrument panel display. Han discloses a driver seat and a driver side window (Fig. 1), an infotainment system display 1 configured to irradiate light towards the driver reference position (Fig. 1); a second micro-louver structure 200 disposed on the infotainment system display and configured to reduce an angle range of light from the infotainment system display passing therethrough; a second polarization structure disposed on the infotainment system display (paragraph 0061) and configured to transmit horizontally polarized light while restricting vertically polarized light from passing therethrough. Neither GM nor Han appears to disclose the use of an anti-reflective structure on the driver’s side window. Zhu discloses an infotainment display system for a vehicle, including an anti-reflective structure 325 disposed on the driver side window. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the infotainment system of Han with the instrument panel display of GM in order to have a fully immersive and electronic display system available for the operator and passengers, and to have that combined system be shielded for directional light radiation as to ensure the driver only received the information they needed and the passenger received the information desired. Use of the anti-reflective structure on the side window, as taught by Zhu would allow the display of information to the driver to be unfiltered and prevent the reflection of the information which may distract the operator. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to displays for vehicles and the associated reflection/dispersion apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 26, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589685
CHASSIS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES HAVING A TRANSPORT AREA FOR A FLUID STORAGE VESSEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583281
WORKING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576700
Retractable Shields for Vehicle Tailgates
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576925
FLAP AUTOMATICALLY-LOCKING ACTIVE AIR FLAP APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576919
COMBINED DRIVETRAIN ACCESS PANEL AND FOOTREST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1119 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