Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/565,915

VISUAL PROTECTION DEVICE FOR TASK FORCES

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Examiner
FISSEL, TRAVIS S
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rubi Glas GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
408 granted / 538 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
572
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. With respect to claim 1, applicant claims “… more than 640 nm, more than 600 nm, more than 560 nm…” and includes similar language in the final limitation of the claim. It is not clear which wavelengths are characterized as short or long due to the inclusion of a series of alternatives. Applicant should clearly define where the range of wavelengths begins and/or ends. This language appears in multiple other claims and should be amended to follow U.S. patent law standards. Further, applicant claims “…wherein the viewing lens is designed to reflect and/or absorb light …. more strongly than…”, which is unclear. The term “more strongly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more strongly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, it is unclear what applicant means by the use of this term. It is not clear how a mirror, for example, could be characterized to reflect one wavelength at one “strength” and then another wavelength at another “strength”. It may be that the applicant means that a higher portion of one wavelength range is reflected than another wavelength range (e.g. 50% of the light in the range of 640-800 nm is reflected and only 10% of the range 400-500 nm). However, this is not a characterization of “strength”, but of flux. For the purposes of this action the office will not consider “strongly” to impart any additional limitation on the claim. Claim 3 has the same issues as claim 1. With respect to claim 2, applicant claims “substantially fully”, which is unclear. One would understand “fully” to mean all or 100% and one would understand “substantially” to be close to all or at least 80%. Therefore, it is not clear if all red light (see the rejection of claim 1 above) needs to be completely reflected or not. For the purposes of this claim the office will interpret the claim such that “substantially fully” means 80% or more. 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orzi et al. (USPAT 5731898). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Orzi discloses a visual protection device for persons and in particular task forces (Col. 10 lines 54-67), having at least one viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, visor for helmet, sunglasses, goggles, spectacles are given as uses), characterized in that wherein the viewing lens is designed to reflect and/or absorb light with wavelengths of more than 640 nm, more than 600 nm, more than 560 nm or more than 550 nm more strongly than light in the shorter wavelength range, wherein the shorter wavelength range extends up to wavelengths of 640 nm, 600 nm, 560 nm or 550 nm (Fig. 4, where 60 is the reflectance plot and shows greater reflection starting at approximately 580 nm). Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Orzi discloses characterized in that wherein the viewing lens is designed to substantially fully reflect and/or absorb red light (Fig. 4, 60 substantially reflects red light). Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Orzi discloses characterized in that, wherein the viewing lens is designed to reflect and/or absorb light with wavelengths of up to 780 nm or 800 nm more strongly than light of at least one other color (Fig. 4 where 60 shows 620 nm to be reflected more than at least blue wavelengths). Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the visual protection device is a face mask, wherein at least a portion of a viewing window of the face mask is formed by the viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, visor for helmet). Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the visual protection device consists of protective goggles with at least one viewing pane wherein the viewing pane is formed at least partly by a viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, goggles). Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Orzi discloses characterized in that wherein the protective goggles have a viewing pane holder, wherein the at least one viewing pane and the viewing pane holder are integrally formed, and wherein only the at least one viewing pane or the at least one viewing pane and the viewing pane holder are designed as a viewing lens (Col. 10 lines 54-67, goggles, sunglasses or spectacles). Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the viewing lens has a reflective and/or absorbent coating for reflecting and/or absorbing the light (Col. 2 lines 1-5). Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Orzi discloses wherein the viewing lens is, in at least some segments or entirely, shaped to be cylindrical or spherical (Col. 10 liens 54-67, optical lenses, contact lenses are all partially spherical and/or cylindrical). Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599302
Volumetric OCT Image Data Processing
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601899
DISPLAY DEVICE FOR IMAGING AND DISPLAYING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601898
IMAGING LENS AND IMAGING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593119
SLIM POP-OUT WIDE CAMERA LENSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582287
MEDICAL DEVICE, ACCESSORIES FOR USE THEREWITH, AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
76%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+11.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 538 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