Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/799,044

ION EXCHANGEABLE GLASSES HAVING HIGH FRACTURE TOUGHNESS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 09, 2024
Priority
Oct 26, 2021 — provisional 63/271,813 +1 more
Examiner
COLGAN, LAUREN ROBINSON
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Corning Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
636 granted / 910 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
959
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 910 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,098,094. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim scope encompasses that of the Patent claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowed upon the appropriate filing of an eTD over Patent 12,098,094 provided in the Obviousness type Double Patenting rejection above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For the same reasons provided in the Notice of Allowance in the parent application 17/973065, while the closest prior art (See references disclosed herein which were also used in the parent Application) may teach a glass similar to that claimed with overlapping composition and a teaching of overlapping properties, the art does not actually teach or render obvious the composition and property combination as required by the claimed invention for reasons argued by Applicants in the parent Application. As noted in the parent Application, the Examiner specifically notes for the record that although the art may disclose an overlapping composition and overlapping property ranges, upon close review of Applicants’ specification it is evident from Applicants’ Examples 25 and 85 that just because a glass may provide for a composition falling within the claimed ranges does not necessarily mean that it will result in the combination of properties (note example 25 has the composition but only has one of the two properties required by the independent claims). It is clear from reviewing the Examples that a specific combination of oxide contents would be required to arrive at both properties. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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. LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 1784 /LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600666
GLASS ARTICLE HAVING AN ANTI-REFLECTIVE COATING
4y 7m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600663
SUBSTRATE, LIQUID CRYSTAL ANTENNA AND HIGH-FREQUENCY DEVICE
1y 9m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594744
INTERLAYER FILM FOR LAMINATED GLASS, AND LAMINATED GLASS
3y 8m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591274
GLASS SUBSTRATE FOR FLEXIBLE DISPLAY AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585046
Heatable Windshield
1y 10m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
70%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+16.4%)
2y 7m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 910 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