Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/559,858

A THERMAL INSULATING MEMBER FOR A VEHICLE COMPONENT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 09, 2023
Examiner
VO, HAI
Art Unit
1788
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Volvo Truck Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 1207 resolved
-8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +72% interview lift
Without
With
+72.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
1267
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1207 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claim 21 being cancelled. Claims 1-20 are rejected. The rejection over Roach has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Roach discloses an acoustic liner comprising a support structure 120 having a first surface and a second surface, a first facing sheet 132 on the first surface and a second facing sheet 152 on the second surface of the honeycomb structure (figure 5). A membrane 164 is provided on the second facing sheet. An aerogel layer 160 is coupled to the membrane on an opposite side of the second facing sheet (paragraph 19). The aerogel layer has a thickness decreasing along a variability direction of the acoustic liner (figure 5). A metallic layer 162 is provided on the surface of the aerogel layer opposite the membrane. Roach fails to teach an acoustic liner wherein the aerogel layer is in direct contact with the honeycomb structure. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. “During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Parkard, 752 F .3d at 1310.” “If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” (MPEP 2173.02, I). The claim looks ambiguous for the following reasons. The first layer has a thickness decreasing along a variability direction, and so does the multilayer complex or the metallic foil. The interpretation is beyond the scope of the claimed invention. In view of the Applicant’s disclosure, the multilayer complex or the metallic foil has a uniform thickness along the variability direction (figures 4-7). In particular, the multilayer complex is in the form of a flat sheet in an unconstraint state (paragraph 74 of the published application). Further, the examiner directs Applicant’s attention to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the published application. PNG media_image1.png 324 413 media_image1.png Greyscale The first layer thickness decreases by 20%, 30% or 50% over a length along the variability direction, which corresponds to the length of the second layer. The relationship of the first and second layers provides the multilayer complex exhibiting a good balance between the thermal insulation performance and cost effectiveness (paragraphs 22 and 23 of the published application). Since the structure of the multilayer complex and the thickness variations of the first and second layers could be interpreted with more than one reasonable interpretation, and said more than one reasonable interpretation going beyond the scope of the claimed invention, the claim is rendered indefinite. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fay et al. (US 2018/0320824) discloses an insulation product comprising an aerogel layer, a foam layer and an outermost metal layer (figures 12A and 12B). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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. /Hai Vo/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1788
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 09, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 08, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600863
MOLDED BODY, METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME, AND RECYCLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594748
FLOOR ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595216
METAL CARBIDE INFILTRATED C/C COMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576564
Method for Producing a Foam-Backed Moulded Component, and Moulded Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559600
POLYETHYLENE COMPOSITE FOR FLEXIBLE DISPLAY SCREEN
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
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+72.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1207 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