Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 16/495,898

SEMI-CRYSTALLINE POLYAMIDE COMPOSITION HAVING A HIGH GLASS TRANSITION TEMPERATURE AND A HIGH MELTING TEMPERATURE FOR A THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF AND USES OF SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 20, 2019
Priority
Mar 24, 2017 — FR 1752485 +1 more
Examiner
LISTVOYB, GREGORY
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arkema France
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
8-9
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
811 granted / 1211 resolved
+2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1240
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
72.8%
+32.8% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1211 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2025 has been entered. The previous prior art rejection under Oda et al (JP 2015017177) in view of Harder et al (US 20090062452) maintained. 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. Claims 1, 5-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al (JP 2015017177) in view of Harder et al (US 20090062452), both cited in previous Office Action. The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 11/06/2024 and is herein incorporated by reference. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that inherency criteria are not achieved and the claimed difference between Tm and Tc is not achieved by the prior art cited in the Office Action. Examiner disagrees. Oda et al (JP2015017177) modified with Harder et al (US 20090062452) discloses the composition identical to the Applicant’s one (see Non-Final Office Action issued 11/06/2024). The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art, does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same properties from Applicant’s and modified Oda’s compositions, since they disclose the same composition. Note that Oda alone disclose basically the same composition as one claimed. The only difference is the quantity of aliphatic diamine (the component is disclosed by Oda). Applicant submits that the amounts of all components are critical inn achieving the physical properties listed in claim 1. However, Applicant fails to demonstrate the criticality of the components ratio. Examiner suggest that relevant Declaration can be submitted. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST 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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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. GL /GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 19 earlier events
Oct 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
May 19, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Nov 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679929
POLYESTER RESIN
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674022
METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALIPHATIC POLYESTER, ALIPHATIC POLYESTER RESIN, AND ALIPHATIC POLYESTER RESIN COMPOSITION
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12662569
PROCESS FOR THE FREE RADICAL POLYMERIZATION OF THIONOLACTONES OR THIONOCARBONATES
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662575
HIGHLY AROMATIC AND LIQUID-CRYSTALLINE HOMO-POLYIMIDES WITH AROMATIC ENDGROUPS AND CROSSLINKED PRODUCTS THEREFROM
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12655252
Mixed Aromatic Amine Monomers And Polymers Thereof
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+29.4%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1211 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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