Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/635,791

MULTIFUNCTIONAL CYCLIC ORGANIC CARBONATES AS CURING AGENTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS HAVING PHENOLIC HYDROXYL GROUPS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 16, 2022
Examiner
FANG, SHANE
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Prefere Resins Holding GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
1136 granted / 1491 resolved
+11.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1542
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1491 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The previous 112 rejection has been overcome by 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. The previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 25 and 29-35 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Najad et al. (US 20220064363) in view of December et al. (US 5961802 listed on IDS). As to claims 25 and 37-35, Najad (abs., claims, examples, figures, table 2, 3, 12, 14, 79, ) discloses a crosslinkable polyurethane prepolymer for coating process and adhesives comprising lignin (1-30 wt%) and a cyclic alkyl carbonate (10-80 wt%): PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale . The lignin is isolated via Kraft, soda process. The disclosed wt% would yield a ratio overlapping with the claimed one of instant claim 25, It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05. Najad is silent on the claimed multifunctional cyclic carbonate. In the same area of endeavor of producing coating comprising crosslinkable polyurethane, December (abs., claims, examples, 1:5-10, 2:24-25, 6:45-20,7:35-8:45, 9:1-65) discloses multifunctional cyclic carbonates that meet the claimed ones (product by process rationale may apply) in instant claims 30-35: PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale Therefore, as to claims 25 and 29-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Najad and replaced the cyclic alkyl carbonate with the multifunctional cyclic carbonate, because the resultant process would yield a composition with high crosslinking density due to the multifunctionality (crosslinking location) of December’s multifunctional cyclic carbonates. Claim(s) 25, 27-28, and 30-35 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dupre et al. (US 20030071393) in view of December et al. (US 5961802 listed on IDS). As to claims 25, 27-28, and 30-35, Dupre (abs., claims, examples, figures, 2-3, 11-12, 7-8, 17-19, 29) discloses a crosslinkable phenolic resin for coating process and adhesives with accelerated curing rate comprising Novolac (phenol/cresol-formaldehyde, 0.1-30 wt%) and two or more cyclic carbonates (0.1-10 wt%). The disclosed wt% would yield a ratio overlapping with the claimed one of instant claim 25, It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05. Dupre is silent on the claimed multifunctional cyclic carbonate. Disclosure of December is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, as to claims 25, 27-28, and 30-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Dupre and replaced the cyclic alkyl carbonate with the multifunctional cyclic carbonate, because the resultant process would yield a composition with high crosslinking density and improved acceleration rate due to the multifunctionality (crosslinking location) of December’s multifunctional cyclic carbonates. Response to Arguments The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument (pg7-8) that December and Najad/Dupre are non-analogous arts, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Najad discloses a crosslinkable polyurethane prepolymer for coating process; Dupre discloses a crosslinkable phenolic resin for coating process and adhesives with accelerated curing rate comprising Novolac and two or more cyclic carbonates. December discloses multifunctional cyclic carbonates that meet the claimed ones for producing polyurethane coating comprising. Thus, Najad/Dupre and December are in the same area of endeavor of producing crosslinkable polymeric coating, and they solve the same problem of crosslinking polymers. The technical difference in Najad/Dupre and December does not render them teaching away from each other, so they can be combined with the motivation implied by December (increasing crosslinking density due to the multifunctionality) to meet the claims. Furthermore, prior art that is in a field of endeavor other than that of the applicant (as noted by the Court in KSR, “when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added)), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2141(c). Therefore, as to claims 25 and 29-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Najad and replaced the cyclic alkyl carbonate with the multifunctional cyclic carbonate, because the resultant process would yield a composition with high crosslinking density due to the multifunctionality (crosslinking location) of December’s multifunctional cyclic carbonates. Therefore, as to claims 25, 27-28, and 30-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Dupre and replaced the cyclic alkyl carbonate with the multifunctional cyclic carbonate, because the resultant process would yield a composition with high crosslinking density and improved acceleration rate due to the multifunctionality (crosslinking location) of December’s multifunctional cyclic carbonates. Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600818
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF STERICALLY HINDERED NITROXYL ETHERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595395
KIT-OF-PARTS FOR CURABLE POLYASPARTIC ACID ESTER-BASED COATING COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595338
PROCESS FOR PREPARING A HYDROXY GROUP FUNCTIONALIZED THIOETHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577411
GAS-BARRIER COATING COMPOSITION AND GAS-BARRIER LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581846
ELECTROLUMINESCENT POLYMER BASED ON PHENANTHROIMIDAZOLE UNITS, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1491 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