Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/781,247

COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Examiner
WILLIAMS, CEDRICK S
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
San Fang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
295 granted / 501 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.4%
+26.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 501 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1). Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a thermoplastic artificial leather, method for manufacturing the same and thermoplastic composite laminate, see abstract. The material to include co-extruding a first material 31 and second material 32, to form an unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer 124 – (construed as a thermoplastic elastomer) and a foamed thermoplastic elastic layer 122 – (construed as a modified thermoplastic elastomer), see [0050] - (construed as which includes a laminated structure formed by co-extruding a thermoplastic elastomer and a modified thermoplastic elastomer). Regarding claim 2, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane, see [0037] – (construed as the modified thermoplastic elastomer includes thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)) and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer is formed of a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see [0039] – (construed as the thermoplastic elastomer includes thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO)). Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses the laminate includes the use of a textile base 14 formed of a nonwoven or woven fabric, see [0042] – (construed as a substrate layer, wherein the laminated structure is disposed on the substrate layer, and the substrate layer includes non-woven fabric, woven fabric). Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1). Regarding claim 6, Feng discloses a thermoplastic artificial leather, method for manufacturing the same and thermoplastic composite laminate, see abstract. The material to include co-extruding a first material 31 and second material 32, to form an unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer 124 – (construed as a thermoplastic elastomer raw material) and a foamed thermoplastic elastic layer 122 – (construed as a modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material), see [0050] - (construed as providing a thermoplastic elastomer raw material and a modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material; and co-extruding the thermoplastic elastomer raw material and the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material to form a laminated structure). Regarding claim 7, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane, see [0037] – (construed as the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material includes thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)) and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer raw material is formed of a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see [0039] – (construed as the thermoplastic elastomer raw material includes thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO)). Regarding claim 8, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material has a Shore hardness of 50A to 85A inclusive, see [0037] and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer raw material has a Shore hardness of 60A to 80A inclusive, see [0039] – (construed as and overlaps a hardness of the thermoplastic elastomer raw material is 50A to 95A, and a hardness of the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material is 50A to 95A). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0041820 A1). Regarding claim 3, while Feng discloses the use of thermoplastic elastic material as a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see at least [0037]; it does not the TPO is a blend. However, a composition suitable for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, Lin discloses a laminate which uses a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO which is anhydride grafted, see abstract. The graft comprises maleic anhydride supplied in an amount of 10% to 30% by weight of the TPO elastomer, see [0015] – (construed as and overlaps a total weight of the modified thermoplastic elastomer is calculated as 100wt%, and a content of the maleic anhydride is less than or equal to 40wt%). And one would consider such a TPO modification, as Lin further discloses this is beneficial for providing adherence to any material and avoiding the problem of ineffective adhesion as encountered in conventional techniques, see at least [0016]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng’s TPO material to be grafted with maleic anhydride as taught by Lin to provide Feng’s laminate with enhanced adhesion as suggested by Lin. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2016/0122595 A1, hereinafter ‘595). Regarding claim 5, Feng does not explicitly disclose the use of a surface layer. ‘595 discloses a laminate of a thermoplastic elastomer layer and a modified adhesive layer, see abstract. The laminate to further include a resin coating 16 – (construed as a surface layer adhered to the modified thermoplastic elastomer of the laminated structure). The resin is formed of polyurethane PU, see [0047] – (construed as the surface layer includes thermoplastic polyurethane surface layer) and is beneficial for forming a color variation on the surface of the laminate, see [0047]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng’s laminate to include a surface layer as taught by ‘595 to provide the laminate with an enhanced surface coating such as a color variance as suggested by ‘595. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0041820 A1). Regarding claim 9, while Feng discloses when using TPU as a thermoplastic elastic raw material, the extruder has a temperature of 185°C, see at least [0061] and the use of TPO; it does not disclose any extruder temperature when using TPO as a thermoplastic elastic raw material. Lin discloses a laminate which uses a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO which is anhydride grafted, see abstract. Lin further discloses this is beneficial for providing adherence to any material and avoiding the problem of ineffective adhesion as encountered in conventional techniques, see at least [0016]. And further when extruding the TPO, the extruder temperature is 205°C, see at least [0040]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng’s TPO material to be grafted with maleic anhydride as taught by Lin to provide Feng’s laminate with enhanced adhesion as suggested by Lin. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600176
HYDROPHOBIC PATTERNS FOR TIRE TREAD GROOVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594787
SIMULATED INFLATABLE WHEEL AND STROLLER COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594785
WHEEL DEVICE AND MOBILE ROBOT DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589615
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583261
AIRCRAFT TIRE WITH ZONED TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 501 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