Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/588,951

MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SOUNDPROOF CUSHIONING MATERIAL AND SOUNDPROOF CUSHIONING MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2022
Examiner
GAITONDE, MEGHA MEHTA
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sanko Gosei Ltd.
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
234 granted / 580 resolved
-24.7% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
630
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 580 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025, has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All of the limitations of claim 17 are contained in independent claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015-013538 Kimura et al. Regarding claim 18, Kimura teaches a soundproof cushioning material (paragraph 00010) to be attached to an inner face of a wheel well of a vehicle body (paragraph 0014), the soundproof cushioning material comprising: a soundproof cushioning area 20 (paragraph 0022), in which a non-woven fabric 32 comprising entangled fibers is disposed (paragraph 0023); and a continuous resin area 11 (paragraph 0016), a boundary part 21 between the soundproof cushioning area and the continuous resin area (figure 3b), and a bonding area wherein the non-woven fabric extends across the boundary part and into the continuous resin area (at bead 41, figure 3b), the soundproof cushioning area is side by side with and adjacent to the continuous resin area on a surface of the soundproof cushioning material (top surface, figure 3b), the surface configured to face a tire in the wheel well (paragraphs 0051-0052), wherein, on a second surface of the soundproof cushioning material opposite to the surface configured to face the tire (figure 3b), the non-woven fabric of the soundproof cushioning area and the continuous resin area are exposed (figure 3b), and wherein at least a portion of the soundproof cushioning area on the surface configured to face the tire in the wheel well does not overlap with the continuous resin area (figure 3b). Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches that the boundary part comprises a compressed non-woven fabric area (recess 21) that is more compressed than the non-woven fabric of the soundproof cushioning area (paragraph 0028). Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches that the boundary part further comprises an extension part (within bead 41) disposed between the compressed non-woven fabric area and the continuous resin area (figure 3b), and wherein the extension part is comprised of a non-woven fabric area that is less compressed than the compressed non-woven fabric area (figure 3b). Regarding claim 17, Kimura teaches a bonding area wherein the non-woven fabric extends across the boundary part and into the continuous resin area. 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-013538 Kimura et al. Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches that the compressed non-woven fabric area has a density of two times or more of a density of the soundproof cushioning area (paragraph 0026 teaching that the uncompressed region has a thickness of 1 mm, and paragraph 0028 teaching that the compressed region has a thickness of 0.5 mm or less). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 2x or more reads on the claimed range of 3x or more. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the resin layer overlaps the entire soundproof cushioning area. However, Applicant misunderstands the rejection. The resin layer is not layer 31 that overlaps layer 32. The resin layer that reads on the rejection is resin layer 11. Layer 11 does not overlap with layer 32 (figure 3b). Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the boundary area. However, the boundary area claimed is depression 21 and the non-woven fabric 32 extends across the depression into the bead (figure 3b). Finally, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the lighter structure. However, the prior art need not have the same reason or recognize the same benefits as Applicant in order to read on the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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. /MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jun 12, 2023
Response Filed
Jul 10, 2023
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Oct 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 09, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 16, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jun 06, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Jun 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 22, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Mar 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jul 15, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600660
ANTIBACTERIAL GLASS COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ANTIBACTERIAL GLASS COATING FILM USING SAME, AND HOME APPLIANCE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576610
LAMINATED GLASS INTERLAYER FILM AND LAMINATED GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573552
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558865
WINDOW AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555709
GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+36.5%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 580 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