Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/631,204

COVER GLASS PRINTING PAD, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING COVER GLASS USING THE SAME AND COVER GLASS MANUFACTURED BY THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 10, 2024
Examiner
TALBOT, BRIAN K
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
680 granted / 1151 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1209
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.0%
+22.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1151 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 . Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/1/25 is acknowledged. Claims 9-12 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-8 remain in the application for prosecution thereof. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10,678,081). Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches a coated cover substrates and electronic devices including the same. Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) depicts a display device and a protective coating (claimed blocking layer) disposed on at least a portion of the non-display area of the front cover substrate (abstract and Figs. 6A-8D). Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches a first top area and second side areas whereby the protective coating is applied to both the first and second areas and are partially contacted, i.e. abutting one another [0044]. Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches the protective layer being formed on the cover substrate by several coating processes [0056]. Inoue et al. (10,678,081) teaches a cover glass and display device having a chamfered front-side part and a coating (18) being applied to the surface (12d) and the chamfered surface (13a) (abstract and Figs. 2 and 3). The coating (18) on the surface (12a) is partially contacting the coating of the chamfered surface (13a). The antireflection film (18) (claimed blocking layer) is formed on the surface 12a and 13a (col. 4, lines 14-23 and col. 5, lines 60-67). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claims 2,3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) in combination with Inoue et al. (8,151,704). Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) are incorporated here. Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) fails to teach a first pad for the first blocking layer and a second pad for the second blocking layer to transfer the first and second blocking layers to the substrate followed by drying. Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches a method of printing on spherical object and pad to be used. Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches applying the printing ink to a printing pad and then contacting by pressing to apply the printing ink to the surface of the object (abstract). Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches after applying the printing ink to the surface of the object, drying and/or curing the printing ink (col. 9, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) process of coating glass having a chamfered surface with the pad printing process as detailed by Inoue et al. (8,151,704) with the expectation of applying the coating with precise precision on the object to be coated. Regarding claims 2 and 3, with regards to a first and second pad, the claims are not limited to the first and second pads to be separate and/or different and hence can be the same or similar pad which would meet the claimed limitation of a first and second pad. Same reasoning for the first and second light blocking inks. Regarding claim 5, Inoue et al. (8,151,704) is silent with respect to the claimed temperatures of drying, however, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art to have selected the claimed drying temperatures as the drying temperatures would be a matter of design choice based upon the coating material and amounts applied absent a showing of criticality thereof. Regarding claim 6, the claims recite forming a third light blocking layer which is recessed inward from both ends. Both Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10,678,081) teach forming multiple layers and the Examiner takes the position that the layer length/width would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof. Regarding claim 7, as both Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) both teach forming layer and Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches using pad printing and drying. The limitation of the third layer being applied after the first layer would be inherent as the third layer is applied to the first layer and hence the first layer would have to be applied previously. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites forming the second layer prior to forming the first layer as opposed to forming in the opposite order. The Examiner takes the position that the order of the first and second layers would be a matter of design choice to produce Similar results absent a showing of criticality thereof. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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. /BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 10, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 02, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 02, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597658
SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY PACK, AND AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595564
METHOD OF FORMING SURFACE TREATMENT FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR RADIALLY-ZONED CATALYST COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586846
SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583016
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE, CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, AND, ELECTRODE MATERIAL
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
59%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+31.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1151 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