Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/584,240

COATING LAYER FOR VEHICLE TRIM ELEMENT, TRIM ELEMENT AND METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
THOMPSON, CAMIE S
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Materi'Act
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
958 granted / 1310 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1310 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 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 5 and 7-9 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. Claim 5 is rendered indefinite because cellulose-based fibers, alginate viscose fibers and lyocell fibers are not synthetic fibers. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the synthetic fibers being polylactic acid fibers, polypropylene fibers polyethylene terephthalate fibers and mixtures thereof. Claim 7 is rendered indefinite because of the term “substantially” It is unclear if the basis weight is 120 g/m2 or a number relatively close to 120 g/m2. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to a basis weight of 120 g/m2. Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear as to what “expanded sublayer refers. It is unclear as to what the term “expanded” is describing in regards to the sublayer. It is unclear if the term “expanded” refers to the structure of the sublayer being an expanded polyurethane or if the term “expanded” refers to the location of the sublayer to the protective layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the location of the sublayer to the protective layer. Claim 9 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear as to what “expanded sublayer refers. It is unclear as to what the term “expanded” is describing in regards to the sublayer. It is unclear if the term “expanded” refers to the structure of the sublayer being an expanded polyurethane or if the term “expanded” refers to the location of the sublayer to the protective layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the location of the sublayer to the protective layer. Claim 9 is rendered indefinite because of the term “substantially”. It is unclear if the thickness is 0.35 mm or a number relatively close to 0.35 mm. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to a thickness of 0.35 mm. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al., EP 2943352. Regarding claims 1, 3, 5 and 11, paragraph 0001 of Schneider discloses a nonwoven fabric as a carrier for a coating. Paragraphs 0018-0019 disclose a nonwoven fabric including a mixture of synthetic fibers and natural fibers wherein the synthetic fibers can include polyethylene terephthalate fibers and the natural fibers can include hemp fibers and flax fibers with the ratio of the natural fibers to the synthetic fibers ranges from 9:1 to 1:9. Paragraph 0016 discloses that the polyethylene terephthalate fibers are hydrophilic fibers. Paragraph 0020 discloses that the hydrophilic fibers are 20 wt% to 100 wt% based on the total weight of the nonwoven fabric. Paragraph 0030 discloses that the fibers have a length of 30 mm to 70 mm. Paragraphs 0069-0070 disclose a coating system applied to the nonwoven wherein the coating system can include polyurethane varnish. Paragraph 0076-0077 discloses an adhesive layer between the nonwoven carrier and the coating system. Paragraph 0076 discloses that the adhesive can include polyurethane. Applicant’s claim 1 is not specific to the protective layer. Examiner is interpreting the adhesive layer as Applicant’s protective layer. Regarding claim 2, Schneider discloses a nonwoven [0001]. Claim 2 is a product-by-by process claim. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. The manner in which the claimed product is manufactured does not make it a different product from the prior art if the claimed product and the prior art product have the same structural limitations. Regarding claim 4, Applicant’s claim recites a mass content of residues of the natural fibers of less than 10% which can include 0%. Schneider does not disclose a mass content of residues of the natural fibers. Regarding claims 6-7 paragraph 0062 discloses that the nonwoven has a basis weight of 10 to 200 g/m2. Regarding claims 8-9, paragraphs 0069-0070 disclose a coating system applied to the nonwoven wherein the coating system can include polyurethane varnish. Paragraph 0076-0077 discloses an adhesive layer between the nonwoven carrier and the coating system. Paragraph 0076 discloses that the adhesive can include polyurethane. Applicant’s claims are not specific to the protective layer. Examiner is interpreting the adhesive layer including polyurethane as Applicant’s protective layer. Applicant’s claims 8-9 are not specific to the “expanded sublayer”. Examiner is interpreting Schneider’s polyurethane coating as Applicant’s sublayer. Paragraph 0073 discloses that the polyurethane coating system has a thickness ranging from 0.01 mm to 0.5 mm. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2013/0210309. Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Kim discloses a multilayer structure [covering] for a vehicle interior material [rigid support] [abstract and 0002]. Paragraph 0012 discloses that the multilayer structure includes a reinforcement sheet including natural and synthetic fibers and a coating film on the outer side surface of the reinforcement sheet. Paragraph 0017 discloses that the natural fiber and the synthetic fiber are mixed at a ratio of 1:9 to 9:1. Paragraph 0018 discloses that the natural fiber and the synthetic fiber have a length ranging from 40 to 120 mm. Paragraph 0025 discloses that the reinforcement sheet is formed by needle punching [nonwoven]. Paragraph 0024 discloses that the coating can include urethane acrylic oligomer [polyurethane based]. Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses in paragraph 0025 that the reinforcement sheet is formed by needle punching [nonwoven]. Claim 2 is a product-by-by process claim. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. The manner in which the claimed product is manufactured does not make it a different product from the prior art if the claimed product and the prior art product have the same structural limitations. Regarding claim 4, Applicant’s claim recites a mass content of residues of the natural fibers of less than 10% which can include 0%. Kim does not disclose a mass content of residues of the natural fibers. Regarding claim 5, paragraph 0021 discloses that the synthetic fibers include polyethylene terephthalate fibers, polypropylene fibers or polylactic acid fibers [0022]. Claim 12 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. Applicant claims a method for producing a covering element as recited in claim 11, further including wherein the step of providing natural fibers comprises a prior step of refinement and defibrillation of the natural fibers so as to obtain a natural fiber composition having a mass content of residues of less than 10%. The closest prior art, Schneider et al., EP 2943352, teaches a nonwoven fabric as a carrier for a coating. Paragraphs 0018-0019 disclose a nonwoven fabric including a mixture of synthetic fibers and natural fibers wherein the synthetic fibers can include polyethylene terephthalate fibers and the natural fibers can include hemp fibers and flax fibers with the ratio of the natural fibers to the synthetic fibers ranges from 9:1 to 1:9. Paragraph 0016 discloses that the polyethylene terephthalate fibers are hydrophilic fibers. Paragraph 0020 discloses that the hydrophilic fibers are 20 wt% to 100 wt% based on the total weight of the nonwoven fabric. Paragraph 0030 discloses that the fibers have a length of 30 mm to 70 mm. Paragraphs 0069-0070 disclose a coating system applied to the nonwoven wherein the coating system can include polyurethane varnish. Paragraph 0076-0077 discloses an adhesive layer between the nonwoven carrier and the coating system. Paragraph 0076 discloses that the adhesive can include polyurethane. Schneider fails to teach or suggest wherein the step of providing natural fibers comprises a prior step of refinement and defibrillation of the natural fibers so as to obtain a natural fiber composition having a mass content of residues of less than 10%. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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. /CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601090
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600171
COMPOSITE COMPRISING A METAL REINFORCING ELEMENT AND AN ELASTOMER COMPOSITION CONTAINING AN ADHESION PROMOTING RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595655
INSULATION PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590388
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE FILAMENT YARNS AND MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE TEXTURED YARN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590192
FIBRE-REINFORCED RESIN, POROUS STRUCTURE, AND MOLDED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+0.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1310 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month