Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/609,698

SILYL TERMINATED PREPOLYMER AND COMPOSITION COMPRISING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2021
Examiner
BROOKS, KREGG T
Art Unit
1764
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITE DE HAUTE ALSACE
OA Round
4 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
58%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
395 granted / 701 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
773
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 701 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s amendment dated 9 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15, 17, and 20-24 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 9 December 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 12-15, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,085,694 (“Cifuentes”). As to claims 12, 13, and 17, Cifuentes teaches a composition for a polish containing a silylated polyether film former (1:5-10). While not stated as moisture curing, the compound is a polymer containing alkoxysilyl groups, which are hydrolyzable (1:63-65), and is thus presumed to be moisture curing. Cifuentes teaches a general formula of a polyether, such as a polyoxypropylene group (2:62-67) with a linking group Y to a hydrolyzable silane group. While not exemplified, Cifuentes teaches that the silylated polyether may be formed by Michael addition of an amine functional polyether to an acryloxysilane 3:25-40. As seen from this discussion, the moiety NH-CH2CH2C(O)OAlkSI(OR)y with y being 3 is an obvious variant of use of acryloxyalkylalkoxysilane with an amine. Further, while not exemplified with modification with acryloxysilane, Cifuentes teaches diaminofunctional polyoxypropylene, in particular D-2000 as suitable, which reacted with acryloxysilane, would provide group Lg with f” being approximately 33 (5:58-65), f is 2, m is 0, R’ is H as required by claims 12 and 17. While the recited amount is not exemplified, Cifuentes teaches the use of catalysts, colorants (pigments or dyes) (2:48-52) as required by claims 12 and 13. Further, while not exemplified, Cifuentes teaches using the silylated polyether at levels from 0.1 to 50 weight percent of the composition (5:10-15), and therefore the use of the compound in the composition, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification suggested by Cifuentes. As to claim 14, Cifuentes teaches the composition as a film forming polish, which is a coating. As to claim 15, while not explicitly stated, Cifuentes teaches use on vehicles, which have roofs, and thus can be considered to renovate roofs. As to claim 20, as discussed with respect to claim 12, while not exemplified, Cifuentes teaches that the silylated polyether may be formed by reacting an aminofunctional polyether, exemplified by Jeffamine D-2000 having the structure (4a) with an acryloxysilane (3a). As to claim 21, Cifuentes teaches the use of acryloxysilane, by example with analogy methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (3:25-40), where the recited structure is simply the acryloxy analogue thereof, and therefore the structure of the analogues acryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane is an obvious substitution in the teaching of Cifuentes. Cifuentes teaches the use of a diamine of the general formula of the polyamine. While Cifuentes does not exemplify such a compound with 68 repeating units, Cifuentes teaches the number of propylene oxide units can range from 1 to 200, and as such the use of diamines having 68 units is an obvious selection suggested by Cifuentes. As to claim 22, while not exemplified, Cifuentes teaches polish compositions include abrasive materials such as silica (2:29-32), which is a filler. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 23 and 24 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cifuentes does not teach or suggest the additional components required by claims 23 and 24. Kosakai (JP 2001-131243 A) does not provide guidance to arrive at both the structure of the prepolymer of formula 1 and the composition having the recited amount therein as now amended. While the prepolymer falls within the general formula of Galbiati (US 6,221,994), Galbiati does not provide guidance to arrive at the prepolymer of formula (1) with the L groups as now amended. Yamada does not provide for a structure of formula (1) with y being 2 or 3 as now amended. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-15, 17, and 20-22 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. 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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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. /KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 19, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600832
FIBROUS MATERIAL IMPREGNATED WITH REACTIVE THERMOPLASTIC PREPOLYMER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590187
POLYMER COMPOSITE CAPABLE OF BEING QUICKLY DISSOLVED OR DISPERSED IN AQUEOUS SOLVENT AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590207
EPOXY COMPOSITION COMPRISING A BIO-BASED EPOXY COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570778
ETHYLENE INTERPOLYMERS CATALYZED USING MIXED HOMOGENEOUS CATALYST FORMULATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565031
STAINABLE MELAMINE LAMINATE PRODUCTS, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
58%
With Interview (+2.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 701 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