Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/567,160

Composite Molded Body, Method for Manufacturing Same, and Composite Sound Absorbing Material

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Examiner
PHILLIPS, FORREST M
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Asahi Kasei Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1441 granted / 1730 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1766
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
74.1%
+34.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1730 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3,5,7,9,11, and 14 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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: currently the range is claimed as a value of 0.1 or higher and 15.0 or lower, the language as drafted is considered to be not immediately clear and has been treated as reading 0.1 -15.0 as this is more immediately clear. 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. Claim(s) 1-3,5,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flack (US2009/0117801) in view of Krick (US2021002890). With respect to claim 1 Flack discloses a composite molded body (see figure 2) comprising fibers and staple fibers (para 34) wherein the composite molded body has a surface density (see para 38 a surface layer 140 is formed, there will inherently be a density, and as described one of ordinary skill would understand the skins to have a higher density than the other fiber portions of the body due to the melting), and an air permeability resistance (see para 45-50 there is necessarily an air permeability to the structure given the function to be a noise reducing element and the permeability of the structure as described therein), wherein the staple fibers are composed of synthetic fibers (para 18) and the composite molded body includes staple fibers at 50% weight percentage based on the total weight of the composite molded body (see para 25). Flack does not expressly disclose the use of fibrillated fibers. It is known from at least Krick (abstract) to use fibrillated fibers in an acoustic body. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Krick to use fibrillated fibers in the fibrous body of Flack so as to enhance the binding within the fibrous body. As it regards the specific selection of the values of the structure it is considered to be within the skill of one in the art as a matter of tuning the response given the overall structure is taught. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 2 Flack as modified further discloses (Krick para 34-35) wherein the fibrillated fibers are one or more types selected from the group consisting of cellulose fine fibers (fineness is taught in the from the thicknesses disclosed), polyacrylonitrile fibrillated fibers, aramid pulp, chitin nanofibers, chitosan nanofibers, and silk fibers. With respect to claim 3 Flack as modified further discloses wherein the fibrillated fibers comprise cellulose fine fibers (Krick para 34-35) and the cellulose fine fibers have a mean fiber size including microfibrous portions up to fibrillated ends. While not expressly disclosing a mean fiber size in the range of 10nm to 1000 nm, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to selecta nay fiber size based upon the desired properties of available fibers to achieve the desired results of he panel formed by the fibers. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 5 Flack as modified (see Krick para 65) further discloses a method of forming including a wet molding method of the slurry which results in a three dimensional product. While not expressly disclosing a pulp molding method, it is considered that the process taught is such that one of orinday skill in the art would select any known wet molding method for forming the material based upon the taught slurry and the desired shape to be formed. With respect to claim 7 Flack as modified discloses a sound absorbing material comprising a composite molded body according to claim 1 (see Flack para 2). 2.Claims 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flack (US2009/0117801) in view of Krick (US2021002890) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ogawa (EP2333766). With respect to claim 9 Flack as modified by Krick discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the inclusion of a support having a thickness of 5mm or greater and the composite molded body layered on the support. Ogawa discloses a multilayered sound absorbing molded structure including a support layer (see para 32 and 33 surface layer is the support layer) It would have been an obvious matter before the time of the effective filing for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ogawa to provide for a support layer with the fibrous panel of Flack as modified by Krick to provides support to the panel which would retain the desired shape of the panel during use. With respect to claim 11 Flack as modified further discloses wherein the support is a porous material (see again para 32 ands 33 of Ogawa). With respect to claim Flack as modified further discloses the inclusion of the respective layers. As it regards the selection of their claimed properties this would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select based upon the desired acoustic properties of the panel. It has been held that that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00. 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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. /FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601170
ACOUSTICAL BUILDING PANEL AND SURFACE COVERING SYSTEMS UTILIZING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603074
PLAYBACK DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL APPARATUS THEREFOR, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595656
ACOUSTIC PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597409
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INCREASING A RESONATOR QUALITY FACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597407
SOUND-ABSORBING MATERIAL AND METHOD OF MAKING SUCH A SOUND-ABSORBING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1730 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