Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/770,767

COMPOSITE PANELS AND PARTS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 21, 2022
Examiner
MATZEK, MATTHEW D
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arrival Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 702 resolved
-19.6% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
750
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 702 resolved cases

Office Action

§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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendment dated 12/12/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 1 has been amended to require a composite structure on a supporting surface, wherein the supporting surface is a diaphragm on a table. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1–3, 6–13, and 15–22 remain pending, while claims 8–13 and 15–22 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1–3, 6, and 7 are examined below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1–3, 6, and 7 under 35 USC 103 in light of the latest amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below. 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 6 and 7 recite the limitation "one or more structural layer" in the composite structure of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldbach (US 2005/0242472 A1) in view of Wolf (GB 1,172,588). Goldbach teaches a process for molding composite, fiber-reinforced plastic sheets using a two-part molding tool, wherein the composite 7 is arranged on a supporting surface, providing a mold 2 positioned above the composite structure. Goldbach abstract, ¶¶ 12, 28, 70, Figs. 2, 7. The temperature of the composite material is heated to a temperature above a threshold that softens the composite structure, while a pressure differential is applied across the composite structure due to the air within the mold cavity being evacuated. Id. ¶¶ 57, 63, Figs. 4, 5. As a result, the composite structure conforms to the shape of the upper mold. The composite structure is then cooled and solidified, after which the composite structure is removed from the mold. Id. ¶¶ 64–69. Goldbach fails to teach that the supporting surface is a diaphragm on a table. Wolf teaches a thermo-molding process that uses a rigid upper mold 5 and lower diaphragm 4 that is supported by a table 3. Wolf at 1:10–15, Figs. 1–5. The use of the diaphragm allows for even contact pressure over an entire surface of the thermo-molded material. Id. at 1:45–49. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a diaphragm on a table as a supporting surface in Goldbach molding tool motivated by the desire to have even contact on bottom side of the composite held against the mold. Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldbach and Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen (WO 00/71329 A1). Goldbach and Wolf fail to teach the structure for the layers of the composite material. Hansen teaches a vacuum molding process for composite materials that includes a reinforced mat comprising an integrated thermoplastic fiber and glass fiber woven mat. Hansen Abstract. The molding process includes placing the reinforced mat in a mold, heating the reinforced mat to a temperature that melts the thermoplastic fiber causing the thermoplastic fibers to envelop the reinforcing glass fibers. Id. at 6, lines 1–18. While the reinforced mat is being heated, air is evacuated from inside of the mold creating a vacuum. Id. The reinforced mat is then cooled until the thermoplastic solidifies and binds the glass fibers forming a composite material and the composite material is removed from the mold. Id. at 6, lines 18–24. The thermoplastic fibers may be in fiber or filament form. Id. at 13, lines 35–37. As shown in Fig. 1b, the composite material may comprise two layers of reinforced mat, each of which may be woven and comprising thermoplastic fibers and reinforcing glass fibers. Accordingly, one of the layers may serve as a surface layer that faces mold 1 and the second layer may serve as a structural layer. Id. Fig. 1b. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to look to Hansen for guidance as to a specific composite material, in particular a composite structure comprising one or more structural layers comprising a woven fabric woven from a yarn of combined reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic polymer fibers and each surface layer comprises a woven or knitted fabric constructed from a thermoplastic polymer yarn, in order to successfully practice the molding process invention of Goldbach. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldbach and Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montagna (US 2004/0000746 A1). Goldbach and Wolf to teach the application of conductive particles onto one or more structural layers of the composite structure. Montagna teaches a method of manufacturing laminate comprising fiber-reinforced polymer and conductive particles. Montagna abstract. The conductive particles adhere to the heated laminate. Id. ¶ 58. The conductive particles have been added to render the laminate electrically conductive. Id. ¶ 23. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have added conductive particle to the structural layer of Goldbach to render it conductive. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldbach and Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto (US 2011/0020626 A1). Goldbach and Wolf fail to teach that the one or more structural layer of the composite structure is formed from recycled thermoplastic composite fabric. Okamoto teaches the formation of a multilayer structure formed using vacuum pressure in a mold. Okamoto abstract. The multilayer structure may be formed using recycled thermoplastic composite fabrics. Id. ¶ 62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used recycled thermoplastic composite fabrics to make the Goldbach composite motivated by the desire to reduce waste and costs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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. /MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600072
HIGHLY CRYSTALLINE POLY(LACTIC ACID) FILAMENTS FOR MATERIAL-EXTRUSION BASED ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600111
ELASTIC MEMBER AND DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597532
METAL-INSIDE-FIBER-COMPOSITE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A METAL-AND-FIBER-COMPOSITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576572
FILAMENT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576619
LAYERED CONTAINMENT FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+38.4%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 702 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