Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/778,474

LAMINATED OPTICAL COMPONENT AND TOUCH SENSOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 19, 2024
Examiner
VARGOT, MATHIEU D
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Japan Aviation Electronics Industry Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
726 granted / 1174 resolved
-3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1211
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
73.5%
+33.5% vs TC avg
§102
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1174 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 1.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. Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art as set forth at instant paragraphs 0005-0009 and shown in Fig. 1 in view of Sasaki et al 2011/0030881 (see paragraphs 0020-0022, 0031, 0045 and 0072-0074). The admitted prior art as shown in instant Fig. 1 and described at instant paragraphs 0005-0009 discloses a laminated optical component comprising a transparent substrate (18), a transparent adhesive layer (20) and a transparent film (19) superposed on the adhesive layer, wherein the substrate, adhesive layer and fil form a flush-ended laminate having an end surface with what constitutes cut surfaces of each component flush with each other, the admitted prior art failing to teach the instant crosslinked (meth)acrylate adhesive with instant shear modulus. Sasaki et al teaches such a (meth)acrylate adhesive (paragraphs 0020-0022) that would be crosslinked (paragraph 0031) and has a shear modulus G’ that is within the instantly claimed range—see paragraphs 0072-0074. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed an adhesive as taught by Sasaki et al in the laminated optical component of the admitted prior art to facilitate adhesion. It is well within the skill level of the art to pick and choose suitable adhesives for a known product and Sasaki et al clearly shows that the instant adhesive is well known in the art. Concerning instant claim 5, the admitted prior art of instant Figure 1 shows the laminated optical component (18, 19 and 20) adjacent to a touch panel part (17) and it would be conventional in the art to provide an adhesive between the two to facilitate bonding—Official Notice is hereby taken of this. 2.Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art as set forth at instant paragraphs 0005-0009 and shown in Fig. 1 in view of Sasaki et al 2011/0030881 (see paragraphs 0020-0022, 0031, 0045 and 0072-0074) and further in view of Adib et al 2014/0220327 (see paragraph 0094). The admitted prior art and Sasaki et al are applied for reasons as set forth in paragraph 1, supra, the references disclosing the basic claimed laminated optical component lacking essentially an ultraviolet absorbing agent in one of the transparent substrate or transparent film. Adib et al (see paragraph 0094) teaches a film (110) in a touch panel display that contains a UV absorber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the structure of the admitted prior art with a film having a UV absorbing agent to provide protection for the device as is conventional in the art. 3.Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art as set forth at instant paragraphs 0005-0009 and shown in Fig. 1 in view of Sasaki et al 2011/0030881 (see paragraphs 0020-0022, 0031, 0045 and 0072-0074) and further in view of Adib et al 2014/0220327 (see paragraph 0094) and Motohashi et al 2014/0320770 (see paragraphs 0242-0250; 2 in Fig. 2). The admitted prior art and Sasaki et al are applied for reasons of record, the references failing to teach a light blocking design being formed on the surface of one of the film and the substrate. Motohashi et al discloses an optical laminate including a light blocking design (2) being formed between two plates between which is an adhesive that is cured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the light blocking design part on the surface of one of the film or substrate to facilitate the curing of the adhesive therebetween as desired. As already noted in paragraph 2, supra, Adib et al teaches the limitation of instant claim 2 and hence that of instant claim 4. 4.The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumoto et al (paragraphs 0027-0030) discloses a methacrylate adhesive with suitable shear modulus values employed in a touch panel. Shimode et al (see paragraph 0045) and Shigetomi et al (paragraphs 0125-0126) also teach suitable adhesives and shear modulus as taught in the instant specification. 5.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. . /MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600102
HIGH-THROUGHPUT MANUFACTURING OF PHOTONIC INTEGRATED CIRCUIT (PIC) WAVEGUIDES USING MULTIPLE EXPOSURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600101
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF OPTICAL WAVEGUIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583185
Ultrasonic and Vibration Welding of Thermoplastics Using A Vibratable Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565017
SHAPING AN OPHTHALMIC LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12529967
METHOD TO MANUFACTURE NANO RIDGES IN HARD CERAMIC COATINGS
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
62%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+21.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1174 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