Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/252,099

ACOUSTIC PANEL EDGE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 08, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rockwool A/S
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
479 granted / 656 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 656 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 December 2025 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 1. Claims 1-4, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by CH372822 to Christensen et al., an English translation of which was provided by Applicant via the IDS filed 02 December 2025 and is referred-to herein, (“Christensen”). With regard to Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 14-15, Christensen teaches a method of coating edges of an acoustic panel composed of man-made vitreous fiber to form a film thereon, the method comprising applying inorganic filler and/or pigment powder and binder layers and heat treating (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0024], [0039]-[0040], [0044]). Christensen teaches spray-application of materials (see ¶ [0047]). With regard to Claim 4, Christensen teaches milling before or after edge treatment (see ¶ [0050]). With regard to Claim 17, Christensen teaches a suspended ceiling comprising acoustic panels (see ¶ [0031]). 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. 2. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 4,248,379 to Hollstein et al. (“Hollstein”). With regard to Claims 5-6, Christensen does not teach processing and sourcing powder from a fluidized bed. Hollstein is directed to powder coating operations, and teaches valve-controlled processing and sourcing of powder coating material from multiple fluidized beds for application of powder to a target surface (see Abstract; FIG. 1). The arrangement of Hollstein enables quick changes in applied powder material without process interruption or contamination (see Col. 1, Lns. 44-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have processed and sourced powder coating material using valve-controlled fluidized beds in the method of Christensen, as taught by Hollstein, in order to maintain continuity of coating operations. 3. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 4,056,647 to Garrick et al. (“Garrick”) and US 2,758,564 to Randall. With regard to Claims 8-9, Christensen does not teach vacuum-facilitated powder application as claimed. Garrick is similarly directed to provision of powder coating material on panel edges, and indicates an apparatus therefor such as that of Randall (see Garrick at Abstract; Col. 3, Lns. 37-39; Col. 4, Lns. 18-30). Randall discloses a frame apparatus comprising a powder inlet for applying powder material on surfaces and edges of sheet materials, with masking of areas not to be coated (see FIG. 1). Garrick teaches usage of the apparatus of Randall to apply coating material to sheet edges and collection of excess via vacuum (see Garrick at Col. 4, Lns. 18-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the apparatus of Randall as directed by Garrick in order to efficiently apply and recover powder coating material to panel edges. 4. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to Claim 14, and further in view of US 2016/0296971 to Hung et al. (“Hung”). With regard to Claims 16 and 20, Christensen does not teach the claimed film thickness. Hung is similarly directed to methods of producing edge-coated performance panels, and teaches applying powder and particulate binder followed by heat treatment therefor (see Abstract; FIGs. 14-15; ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0027], [0119], [0143], [0174]). Hung teaches coating thicknesses within the claimed range (see ¶ [0044]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided coating thicknesses within the claimed range in the method of Christensen, as taught by Hung, with a reasonable expectation of success. 5. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to Claim 14, and further in view of US 2014/0166836 to Kabatsi et al. (“Kabatsi”). With regard to Claims 17-19, Christensen teaches ceiling suspension of acoustic panels (see ¶ [0031]); however the reference does not expressly teach deployment as wall structures or vertical baffles as claimed. Kabatsi teaches vertical arrangement of board-shaped members affixed to grid supports suspended from ceilings as repeatable decorative architectural features to conceal utilities while permitting function and access thereof (see Abstract; FIGs. 2, 8, 12; ¶ [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deployed panels produced by the method of Christensen as acoustic panel members of a decorative and/or functional architectural feature as taught by Kabatsi. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 03 September 2025 have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein in response to the claims as amended. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed valve arrangement and operation in cooperation with a conveyor system on which an acoustic panel is transported to control sourcing and application of powder material to panel edges form a fluidized bed. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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 P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 12, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 11, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599567
A METHOD FOR PREPARING A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE WITH INKS AND A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE OBTAINABLE BY THE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599919
SLOT-TYPE SPRAY NOZZLE, COATING DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF FILM-COATED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594729
ADHESIVE APPLICATION DEVICE AND METHOD OF APPLYING ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594578
STRUCTURAL MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580202
ELECTRODE LAYER COMPOSITION, PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE THEREOF AND MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY
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
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 656 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