Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/727,617

ENCAPSULATED BRIGHT STRIP ASSEMBLY, AND METHOD FOR CONNECTING ENCAPSULATED BRIGHT STRIP ASSEMBLY AND EXTERNAL COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Priority
Jan 17, 2022 — CN 202210047587.6 +1 more
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1250 granted / 1580 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1589
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1580 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regard to claim 1, the phrase “… to realize attachment …” (line 3) is narrative and fails to define a clear and definite attachment. Also, in regard to claim 1, the phrase “the encapsulation soft rubber comprises a foaming area inside” (line 4) is indefinite as to whether the foaming area is part of the material that makes up the encapsulation soft rubber or just an area within the encapsulation soft rubber. Clarification is respectfully requested. In regard to claims 2 and 3, it is unclear as to how an “area” (claim 2 and 3, line 2) can possess a foaming density as claimed, since it is unclear as to whether the “area” is made up of a material or now (see rejection of claim 1 above). Clarification is again respectfully requested. In regard to claim 14, it is unclear as to whether the “external component” in line 2 is the same “external component” already claimed in claim 1; it appears to the Office that the components are doubly (i.e. duplicate) claimed. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the entire set of claims for other similar occurrences of indefinite language, since the above listing may only be exemplary and not exhaustive in nature. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Sun et al. reference pertains to an encapsulated bright strip device with similarities to that of Applicant but fails to disclose a foaming area similar to that claimed by Applicant. Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, with the Sun et al. reference appearing to be the closest prior art device, alone or in combination, teach Applicant’s invention of an encapsulated bright strip assembly inclusive of details regarding an encapsulated soft rubber with a foaming area inside, as claimed. To modify the closest prior art device to have such feature would involve teachings gleaned only from the instant application for patent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /STEVEN O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 09, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746977
HOOD FOR VEHICLE
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741514
VEHICLE CARGO SPACE ACCESS PROVIDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741698
HARDPOINT CONNECTORS FOR COMPOSITE TRUCK BODY FLOORS
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735118
BONDING STRUCTURE EFFICIENTLY
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725871
PROTECTIVE CASE AND DRIVE UNIT
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.2%)
3y 1m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1580 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