Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/610,186

OPTICAL LAMINATE, TRANSPARENT DISPLAY INCLUDING SAME, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Priority
Mar 30, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0042198 +1 more
Examiner
AHMAD, KHAJA
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Dongwoo Fine-chem Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
766 granted / 946 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
992
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 946 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 05/20/2026. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 12-14 have been withdrawn from consideration. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of recently allowed application 18610203. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claims 1-11 of this application recite elements and their arrangements in an optical laminate that are recited in different claims of recently allowed application 18610203 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 would be allowable once the above double patent rejections are overcome by filling a Terminal Disclaimer. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a optical laminate, comprising: “a functional layer provided on a portion on one surface of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer on which the metal layer pattern is not formed, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a silicone-based pressure-sensitive adhesive, and the functional layer includes one or more selected from an optically clear adhesive resin and an optically clear adhesive” in combination with other limitations in the claim. Regarding claims 2-11, these claims are allowed as they depend on an allowable claim. Examiner Notes A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 . 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. /KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707620
STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
3y 6m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12707956
MEMORY DEVICE HAVING BACKSIDE POWER VIAS
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12707959
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICE CONTAINING DUMMY VIA CAVITIES AND METHOD FOR MAKING SAME
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12708000
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12702045
PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.0%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 946 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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