Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/026,761

Book with backlit pages

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
LEWIS, JUSTIN V
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Michal Virág
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
749 granted / 1362 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1362 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 January 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0109314 to Stravinskas et al. (“Stravinskas”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,508,892 to Laczynski et al. (“Laczynski”). Regarding claim 1, Stravinskas discloses a book (100, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 20) with backlit (para. 20) pages (108), wherein the book (100) comprises two shielding (fig. 2A) films (e.g. overlay sheets 204), a light conducting fibre (e.g. LED lights 202, as shown in fig. 2A and discussed at para. 22) is arranged between (fig. 2A) the two shielding films (204). Stravinskas does not disclose the two shielding films (204) being light impermeable, each of which having cut-outs, and two light-permeable print layers containing content graphics being attached to surfaces of the two shielding films (204) facing away from the light conducting fibre (202) respectively, wherein at least part of the content graphics is aligned with at least part of the cut-outs to enable light from the light conducting fibre (202) to illuminate the at least part of the content graphics. Laczynski teaches the concept of providing a shielding (fig. 2) light impermeable (figs. 2 and 6; note the manner in which apertures 98 must be provided within intermediate support panel 55 to allow any illumination from light fibres 100 to be visible therethrough, thus implying that the remainder of the panel 55 must be light-impermeable) film (e.g. intermediate support panel 55, as shown in figs. 2 and 6) having cut-outs (e.g. apertures 98, as shown in fig. 2), a light conducting fibre (e.g. light fibres 100, as shown in fig. 6 and discussed at col. 4, lines 53-55) is arranged behind (fig. 6) the shielding light impermeable film (55), and a light-permeable print layer (e.g. front effect panel 54, as shown in figs. 2 and 6) containing content graphics (e.g. “Message” 99, as shown in fig. 2) is attached to (fig. 2) a surface (e.g. outward facing surface, as shown in fig. 2) of the shielding light impermeable film (55) facing away from (figs. 2 and 6) the light conducting fibre (100), wherein at least part of the content graphics (aforementioned “Message” 99) is aligned with (fig. 2) at least part of the cut-outs (98) to enable light from the light conducting fibre (100) to illuminate (compare figs. 2 and 6) the at least part of the content graphics (aforementioned “Message” 99). Given that Stravinskas and Laczynski both concern backlit display panel assemblies incorporating lights into overlying printed designs (compare Stravinskas fig. 2A and Laczynski fig. 2), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Laczynski teachings to Stravinskas, using Laczynski support panel 55 and front effect panel 54 pairs in lieu of the Stravinskas overlay sheets 204 and disposing the Stravinskas LED lights 202 within the Laczynski apertures 98, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant more aesthetically pleasing appearance for the overall assembly. Regarding claim 2, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the light conducting fibre (Stravinskas 202) between the shielding light impermeable films (Laczynski 55) constitutes a ring of a rectangular shape. However, such a shaping would be an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Stravinskas LED lights 202 in a rectangular ring shaping in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant aesthetic appearance as desired. Regarding claim 3, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 1, wherein at least one light-permeable print layer (e.g. instance of Laczynski 54 disposed on front of Stravinskas translucent sheet 200) containing the content graphics (Laczynski “Message” 99) is attached to (at least indirectly- see the combination set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra) another light-permeable print layer (e.g. instance of Laczynski 54 disposed on rear of Stravinskas translucent sheet 200) containing the content graphics (Laczynski “Message” 99). Regarding claim 4, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 1, wherein the light-conducting fibre (Stravinskas 202) is a side-emitting optical fibre or a LED light chain (aforementioned Stravinskas chain of LED lights 202, as shown in fig. 2A). Regarding claim 5, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 2, wherein the light-conducting fibre (Stravinskas 202) is a side-emitting optical fibre or a LED light chain (aforementioned Stravinskas chain of LED lights 202, as shown in fig. 2A). Regarding claim 6, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 3, wherein the light-conducting fibre (Stravinskas 202) is a side-emitting optical fibre or a LED light chain (aforementioned Stravinskas chain of LED lights 202, as shown in fig. 2A). Regarding claim 7, Stravinskas in view of Laczynski discloses the book with backlit pages according to claim 1, wherein the light-permeable print layers (Laczynski 54) arranged on two sides (see the combination set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra) of the light conducting fibre (Stravinskas 202) are illuminated (see the combination set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra). Response to Arguments In view of Applicant’s material claim amendments, a new understanding of the exact nature of the claimed invention has been gleaned. Accordingly, a further search of the pertinent areas of prior art has been executed. Within said search, the aforementioned Laczynski reference was identified. As such, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection, based on the combination of references relied upon herein, is not specifically challenged in Applicant’s arguments. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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. /JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 12, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600161
Micro-Optic Device for Producing a Magnified Image
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589610
A SEALING MARK, A PACKAGE AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584024
FLOWABLE LUMINESCENT COATING COMPOSITION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582247
MAGNETIC PICTURE FRAME SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584254
NEEDLEPOINT FINISHING METHOD
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1362 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