Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/901,449

ECO-FRIENDLY AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR PART AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 01, 2022
Examiner
PIERCE, JEREMY R
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dae Won Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
321 granted / 566 resolved
-8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+43.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.5%
+13.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 566 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on September 23, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 4-15 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 13-15 withdrawn from consideration. 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, 4-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0292148 to Pourdeyhimi et al. (“Pourdeyhimi”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,879 to Addie et al. (“Addie”). With regard to Claim 1, Pourdeyhimi discloses an artificial leather substrate comprising a composite nonwoven web formed using one or more fiber components, leather shavings, and/or pulverized leather trim scrap. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Pourdeyhimi discloses the artificial leather is suitable for use in automobile upholstery. Paragraphs [0006] and [0100]. Pourdeyhimi discloses that the artificial leather comprises a composite web 110 layer, which is equated to the claimed regeneration composite layer because it comprises 70%, up to about 80%, by weight of leather shavings and/or pulverized leather scrap, paragraphs [0022] and [0036], with the remaining balance being synthetic monocomponent polyethylene terephthalate fibers. Paragraphs [0017] and [0043]. Pourdeyhimi does not require additional polymer components to be present in the composite web 110 leather. Pourdeyhimi discloses that the artificial leather comprises a lightweight web 115 and a lightweight web 120, which are equated to the claimed physical property reinforcing layer and the skin layer, given the ordering of the layered material. Figures 3A and 3B and paragraphs [0042] to [0045]. Pourdeyhimi discloses that the artificial leather can further include a surface resin, paragraphs [0084] and [0085], which structurally satisfies the claim limitation of a surface-modifying layer. While Pourdeyhimi discloses that the leather shavings and/or pulverized trip scrap is natural leather that can be shredded or milled such that they are small enough to not form clusters, paragraphs [0040] and [0041], Pourdeyhimi does not specifically disclose that the natural leather is in the form of staple fiber. Nonetheless, such a feature is well known in the art and would be obvious to provide. Addie is related to manufacturing reconstituted leather products. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Addie teaches that, when making reconstituted leather, it is appropriate to convert the leather scrap into fibers having a staple length. Column 3, line 33 – column 4, line 18. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize staple length natural leather fibers in the artificial leather disclosed by Pourdeyhimi in order to provide natural leather materials with the proper construction suitable for making reconstituted leather, as shown to be known by Addie. With regard to Claims 4 and 5, Pourdeyhimi discloses that the lightweight web 115 can be a nonwoven fabric formed of fiber comprising nylon, PET, PP, or cotton. Paragraphs [0042] to [0045]. With regard to Claims 6 and 7, Pourdeyhimi discloses that the composite web 110 can have a thickness of 0.2 to 5 mm and the light weight web 115 can have a thickness of up to 0.2 mm. Paragraph [0066]. With regard to Claim 8, Pourdeyhimi discloses that the lightweight web 120 can be formed using polyurethane. Paragraph [0045]. With regard to Claim 9, Pourdeyhimi discloses that the lightweight web 120 can have a thickness of up to 0.2 mm. Paragraph [0066]. With regard to Claim 11, Pourdeyhimi discloses that the amount of resin applied to the artificial leather can be less than about 0.5% by weight. Paragraph [0082]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize less than 3.0 g/cf of a wet application of binding resin to form the skin layer of Pourdeyhimi in order to satisfy the desire of Pourdeyhimi to provide the resin layer as thin as possible. With regard to Claim 12, given the stated desire by Pourdeyhimi to use the artificial leather in automobiles, paragraphs [0006] and [0100], it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the artificial leather into one or more of an automobile seat, door trim, console, crush pad, or steering wheel, in order to actually implement the product in an automobile, as taught by Pourdeyhimi. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi in view of Addie, as applied above to Claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0316977 to Higashikawa (“Higashikawa”). With regard to Claim 10, Pourdeyhimi does not disclose using a gloss control agent in the resin layer. Higashikawa is also related to decorative surface materials for furniture. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Higashikawa teaches that a gloss control agent can be added to urethane-based resins in order to scatter light and provide a matting effect. Paragraphs [0009] and [0010]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a gloss control agent in the resin skin layer disclosed by Pourdeyhimi in order to provide a visual matting effect to the material, as shown to be known by Higashikawa. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 4-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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. JEREMY R. PIERCE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1789 /JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 23, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 23, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595598
KNIT SPACER FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590231
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC FIBER, ORGANIC FIBER-RUBBER COMPOSITE, AND TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590392
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF BREATHABLE AND WATERPROOF NON-WOVEN FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571133
HOMOGENEOUS FILLED YARN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571141
MULTI-LAYER MELTBLOWN NON-WOVEN FABRIC AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+43.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 566 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