Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/632,053

UV stabilization of a cross-linkable polyolefin composition comprising an acidic silanol condensation catalyst

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 01, 2022
Examiner
NERANGIS, VICKEY M
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BOREALIS AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
649 granted / 1152 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1221
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1152 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. All outstanding rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 12/30/2025. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: it ends in “; and” and does not include a period. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (US 6,232,376). With respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 19, and 20, Tsukada discloses a curable polyolefin composition comprising 100 parts by weight (pbw) polyolefin, unsaturated alkoxysilane, 0.01-2 pbw silanol condensation catalyst, 0.02-2 pbw of a hindered amine stabilizer, 0.01-1 pbw hindered phenol antioxidant (abstract), and 0.0-1 pbw arylamine (not hindered) antioxidant. Given the relatively low level of additives, it is the examiner’s position that the amounts in pbw are about the same as amounts in wt % like claimed. Exemplified hindered amine stabilizer includes succinic acid dimethyl-1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine polycondensate (a piperidine compound of claimed formula (V)) in an amount of 0.08 pbw (col. 11, Table 1). While the exemplified amount of hindered amine UV stabilizer is outside claimed range of 0.0005-0.06 wt %, Tsukada discloses that the hindered amine stabilizer can be added in an amount of 0.02-2 pbw which overlaps with claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an amount of hindered amine stabilizer is slightly lower amounts to overlap with the claimed range. With respect to claim 3, an exemplified hindered phenol antioxidant is tetrakis[methylene-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate] methane, PNG media_image1.png 174 314 media_image1.png Greyscale , which reads on claimed formula (I) when R1 and R2 are t-butyl (aliphatic hydrocarbon), R3 being everything to the left of the benzene ring, X1 is OH, and X2 and X3 are hydrogen. With respect to claims 10 and 11, Tsukada teaches that the olefin copolymers include 15-40 wt % of (meth)acrylates and vinyl acetate (col. 4, lines 10-26). With respect to claims 14-17, Tsukada states that the polyolefin composition is used for insulating a cable or in pipes or films (col. 9, lines 8-16). Claims 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (US 6,232,376) in view of Nylander (US 2010/0267869) The discussion with respect to Tsukada in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Tsukada discloses an acidic silanol condensation catalyst such as exemplified dibutyltin dilaurate (col. 10, lines 37-38) but fails to disclose that the silanol condensation catalyst comprises an organic sulfonic acid comprising 10-200 carbon atoms and at least one aromatic group. Nylander discloses a UV stabilized crosslinkable polyolefin composition comprising a crosslinkable polyolefin with hydrolyzable silane groups and a silanol condensation catalyst (abstract) and teaches that preferred acidic silanol condensation catalysts are sulfonic acid and tin organic compounds (paragraph 0053), wherein the acidic catalysts allow crosslinking to quickly take place at room temperature (paragraph 0051). Particularly preferred is an organic aromatic sulfonic acid having 10-200 carbon atoms (paragraph 0059) having formula Ar(SO3H)x where x is at least one (paragraph 0056). The aromatic group Ar can be substituted with C1-C30 hydrocarbyl groups (paragraph 0058). Given that both Tsukada and Nylander are drawn to a UV stabilized crosslinkable polyolefin composition comprising a crosslinkable polyolefin with hydrolyzable silane groups and a silanol condensation catalyst and further given that Nylander teaches that an advantageous acidic silanol condensation catalyst is a sulfonic acid compound like claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the organic aromatic sulfonic acid silanol condensation catalyst of Nylander in the composition taught by Tsukada. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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. /VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 vn
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 01, 2022
Application Filed
May 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 29, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600812
DISPERSANTS MADE FROM ISOCYANATES AND AMINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595377
RETROREFLECTIVE AQUEOUS PSEUDOPLASTIC GEL COMPOSITION FOR INDUSTRIAL SPRAYING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583980
Preparation Method of Super Absorbent Polymer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570812
FIBER-REINFORCED MOLDED BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING FIBER-REINFORCED MOLDED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559636
METHOD FOR TUNING GLOSS IN PAINT FORMULATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+28.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1152 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