Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/575,674

METHOD FOR ANALYSING THE OPTICAL QUALITY OF A GLAZING ELEMENT, METHOD FOR CALIBRATING A CAMERA, GLAZING ELEMENT THUS ANALYSED

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
POTTS, RYAN PATRICK
Art Unit
2672
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Saint-Gobain
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
189 granted / 235 resolved
+18.4% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
264
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 235 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 10, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract of the disclosure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at pages 10-11, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 11, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Each rejection is withdrawn as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, except for the rejection of claim 14 with respect to the antecedent basis issues with respect to “the visible” and “the infrared” as well as the confusion as to the difference, if any, between “a camera in the infrared” and “a thermal camera”. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained because the amendment to claim 14 does not resolve the aforementioned issues. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “L1” in line 6 of claim 1 should be changed to “L1” to be consistent with how the term is used elsewhere in the claims, e.g., in the last line of claim 1 or in line 2 of claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites, in part, “a camera in the visible, a camera in the infrared or a thermal camera” (emphasis added). The limitations “the visible” and “the infrared” lack antecedent basis because visible light and infrared light can include any number of particular ranges of wavelengths. For example, some optical cameras acquire a subset of wavelengths in the visible spectrum depending on filters used to block or mitigate certain visible spectrum wavelengths. Thus, there is more than one visible spectrum that may be referred to by “the visible” and it is unclear which spectrum is intended. The entire infrared spectrum comprises sub-spectra, e.g., Near Infrared and Far Infrared. Thus, there is more than one infrared spectrum that may be referred to by “the infrared”. Additionally, it is unclear how “a camera in the infrared” is any different than “a thermal camera” (emphasis added) because both types of cameras operate on light in the infrared spectrum. While all thermal cameras are infrared cameras, not all infrared cameras are thermal cameras. However, the claim does not provide enough context for a POSITA to understand the difference between the recited “camera in the infrared” and “thermal camera”. For purposes of applying prior art, “a camera in the visible, a camera in the infrared or a thermal camera” is interpreted, based on paragraphs 36, 66 and 70 of the specification, as “a visible light camera Near Infrared LIDAR camera Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection to claim 1 for minor informalities set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-13 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims while also amending to overcome issue raised in the objection to claim 1 for minor informalities set forth in this Office action. Claim 14 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims while also amending to overcome issue raised in the objection to claim 1 for minor informalities set forth in this Office action. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST. 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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. /RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672 /SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591966
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ANALYZING BLOOD VESSEL BASED ON MACHINE LEARNING MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12560734
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING SEISMIC IMAGES TO OBTAIN A REFERENCE RGT SURFACE OF A GEOLOGICAL FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555259
PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION APPARATUS, PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548658
Systems and Methods for Scalable Mapping of Brain Dynamics
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538743
WARPAGE AMOUNT ESTIMATION APPARATUS AND WARPAGE AMOUNT ESTIMATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 235 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