Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/575,699

SUBSTRATE COATED WITH AT LEAST ONE DIAMOND-LIKE CARBON LAYER PROTECTED BY A GERMANIUM OR GERMANIUM OXIDE TEMPORARY LAYER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
YANG, ZHEREN J
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Saint-Gobain
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
291 granted / 508 resolved
-7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +53% interview lift
Without
With
+53.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 508 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 14 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited reference Krishna does not teach a thickness of 2-40 nm for its Ge/GeOx layer. This is not found persuasive because “a” is not the same as “an entire”, and a coating whose entire thickness is 100 nm to 500 nm does indeed possess a thickness of 2-40 nm. Furthermore, the references cited below clearly show that even entire thickness of 2-40 nm is known in the art. Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites “said germanium or germanium oxide layer comprising less than 20% tin” (emphasis added). “Comprise”/ “include” usually denotes actual presence of a material. However, in view of further limitations in claim 2 requiring said germanium or germanium oxide layer to be tin-free, “comprising less than 20% tin” is considered to mean that presence of tin is optional, and that should it be contained, its content <20% in the germanium or germanium oxide layer. It is noted that none of claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 expressly requires the presence of the optional oxygen barrier layer. As such, these claims are treated to further limit an element that is optional, as opposed to requiring the presence of an (optional) element and further defining an attribute of this element. 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. Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 is indefinite, as it is unclear whether the direct contact requirement also pertains to the DLC layer, which is nominally located on a substrate and not on a layer. For prior art rejection below, it is presumed that the claim requires immediate contact only between 1) the DLC layer and the layer of germanium or germanium oxide and between 2) the layer of germanium or germanium oxide and the optional oxygen barrier. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0122671 A1 (“Hart”). Considering claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 19, Hart discloses a coated glass substrate comprising a glass substrate and a multilayered film 14 deposited upon the glass substrate, wherein the multilayered film 14 comprises alternate deposition of a first layer 14A that may be DLC and a second layer 14B placed immediately thereupon, the second layer may be composed of a low refractive index material such as GeO2. (Hart ¶¶ 0085, 0086, and 0096; and Fig. 1). Hart is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (coated glass substrate having a DLC layer). Selections of respective materials for layers 14A and 14B are obvious, as these are specifically disclosed in Hart. Hart further discloses that a seed layer 22 maybe placed between the glass substrate and the multilayered film 14, wherein the seed layer 22 may comprise silicon nitride. (Id. ¶ 0105). As expressly illustrated in Fig. 1 of Hart, a sequence of immediate layers of seed layer 22/ a first layer 14A/ a second layer 14B is shown. With the reference not mentioning Sn, and with the second layer being composed of GeO2 (viz. containing no other element), no layer contains any tin. Further, no metal layer is contained anywhere in the multilayered film 14. Hart discloses that layer 14B has thickness of 5 nm or greater. (Id. ¶ 0087). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05). Hart thus renders obvious claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 19. Considering claims 4, 8, 16, and 20, Hart discloses that layer 14A has thickness of 5 nm or greater, and that layer 22 has thickness of ~1 to ~10 nm. (Hart ¶¶ 0087 and 0104). These overlap the respectively recited ranges. Considering claims 5, 6, 17, and 18, as each of these claims further modifies an optional element without actually requiring presence of the optional element, Hart also reads on each of claims 5, 6, 17, and 18. Considering claim 11, this configuration is expressly shown in Fig. 1 of Hart. Considering claim 12, Hart discloses that the multilayered film 14 can contain only two layers. (Id. ¶ 0085). In which case, there is only one layer 14A and one layer 14B. Concluding Remarks Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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. /Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583787
TRANSPARENT SUBSTRATE COATED WITH A STACK OF THIN LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560971
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551950
HARD COATING FILM FOR CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12528271
Multi-Layered Windowpane and Method for Producing Such Windowpane
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12527313
GLAZING FOR MINIMISING BIRD COLLISIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+53.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 508 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