Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/856,485

SPACER WITH IMPROVED MECHANICAL STIFFNESS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Priority
Apr 14, 2022 — EU 22168277.6 +1 more
Examiner
MULVANEY, ELIZABETH EVANS
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
876 granted / 1114 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1128
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1114 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/24 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 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 claim 1, line 15-16, the claim recites “the plurality of continuous fibers on a surface of…” Can this be the inner surface? The specification and drawings only show the fibers on the outer surface. Clarification is required. In claim 8, line 2, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of continuous fibers are embedded…” Is this in addition to the fibers on the surface? Clarification is required. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3241972 (LENZ ET AL). Regarding claim 1 and 12: The reference discloses a spacer for insulated glass units comprising a polymer hollow profile having the outer walls as described. See Figures. The reference discloses that the spacer may have reinforcing tapes or strips or nets formed of a fiber/polymer composite placed on the outer surface of the spacer. The reinforcements are along the longitudinal direction of the spacer. See [0064] and Figures. It is recognized that the reference does not specify the use of continuous fibers in the tapes or strips. The fiber length is not specified. However, the reference discloses using continuous fibers within the spacer material as reinforcement. See [0063]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use continuous fibers in the reinforcing fiber/polymer tapes or strips. One would be motivated by the contemplated reinforcing properties disclosed, i.e. using the reinforcing materials disclosed for the spacer material itself would yield predictable results in a polymer tape or strip. Regarding claims 5-7 and 16-18: The direction the fibers are oriented would be determined by the use of tapes, strips or nets. See [0064]. Regarding claims 8-9: The fibers may be embedded in the spacer walls. See [0063]. Regarding claims 11-12: The spacer is formed by cold bending. See [0015]. Regarding claim 13: The use of insulated glass in building interiors or exteriors in known. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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. /ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679064
METHOD, MACHINERY, DECORATIVE FILM AND EMBOSSABLE FORMULATION TO DECORATE AND EMBOSS A MATERIAL
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680316
SPORTS FLOORING IN TILE OR PLANK FORM
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680193
SiC WAFER AND SiC EPITAXIAL WAFER
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676318
AUXILIARY FILM
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676406
RADOME ILLUMINATED GRILLE
1y 12m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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
94%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 2m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1114 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