Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/249,804

CEILING MATERIAL FOR VEHICLES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
ZHANG, MICHAEL N
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kasai Kogyo Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
212 granted / 396 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
454
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 396 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al (US 2019/0111859 A1) in view of Liu (CN 208085165 U), Matsunaga (JP 2014-218052 A) and Zhao (CN 111591230 A). Regarding Claim 1, Kumamoto teaches a headliner (Abstract) comprising a base material (Fig. 5, Item 31), a skin material layer arranged on the base material and a vehicle interior side and forming the ceiling surface of a vehicle interior (Fig. 5, Item 22), an adhesive layer between the base material and the skin material layer (Paragraph 0039), and a back surface layer arranged on the base material and a vehicle roof side. (Fig. 5, Item 33). Kumamoto teaches the back surface layer is the layered film, a second layered film (Fig. 5, Items 35,36) comprising a laminate of a metal foil and a resin film used for infrared and thermal control. (Paragraph 0002, 0005) Kumamoto does not specifically teach the adhesive layer comprises a first layered film, where the first layered film includes a laminate of a first metal foil, the first metal film having a thickness of 10 to 100 microns, and the first resin film has an elongation percentage higher than the of the first metal foil. Liu teaches a headliner (Paragraph 0004), where the base material has two reflective structures on both sides of the base substrate (Fig. 1). Liu teaches adding double aluminum/metal composite layers improves the heat insulation properties of the resulting headliner material. (Paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a metal foil to the Kumamoto does not specifically teach the claimed metal thickness range or the layered film has an elongation percentage higher than of the metal aluminum foil. However, given that Kumamoto teaches the adhesive layer can a polyolefin adhesive and Liu teaches the metal foil can be aluminum, then the first resin layer will inherently have an elongation percentage higher than that of the first metal foil. Kumamoto and Liu do not specifically teach the claimed range of the metal foil. Matsunaga teaches a headliner, where the aluminum foil is used as heat reflecting layer and laminated to a resin film (Abstract; Paragraph 0024). Matsunaga teaches a thickness of 0.01 to 1 mm is suitable for thickness of the aluminum with regard to formability and weight. (Paragraph 0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the foil thickness in Kumamoto and Liu to the claimed thickness range. Kumamoto, Liu, Matsunaga, and Zhao do not specifically teach the first layered film includes a plurality of holes connecting the skin material layer and the base material layer to each other. Zhao teaches forming holes through headliner material (Fig. 3). Zhao teaches this allows for ventilation through the headliner, which allows for better cooling of the vehicle. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply through holes through the entire headliner, including the first layered film of Kumamoto. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments. A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments 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. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM. 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 at (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. /Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 19, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600113
FLEXIBLE COVER WINDOW WITH IMPROVED STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600117
HYBRID ROOFING MEMBRANE AND METHODS OF MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576621
ADHESIVELESS THERMALLY LAMINATED BARRIER HEAT SEALING FILMS INCLUDING POLYETHYLENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565723
Fabric with Flow Restricting Core
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558878
BI-DIRECTIONALLY ORIENTED MULTILAYER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
54%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 396 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