Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/784,755

RESIN COMPOSITION, MOLDED ARTICLE THEREOF, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAID RESIN COMPOSITION

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Jun 13, 2022
Examiner
QIAO, HUIHONG
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Adeka Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 109 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
153
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 109 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . This communication is responsive to claim set filed 11/06/2025. Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 15 are currently pending. Claims 3-5, 9-14 and 16-18 are canceled. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn. The 35 USC 102 rejection based on Mileva et al. (WO2019002294Al) at para. 7 of the non-final Office Action dated 05/07/2025 is WITHDRAWN because Mileva does not disclose the nucleating agent is a compound represented by the general formula (1). The 35 USC 102 rejection based on Grein et al. (EP2154194Al) at para. 8 of the non-final Office Action dated 05/07/2025 is WITHDRAWN because Grein discloses that the composition is free of filler (claim 1). The rejections based on Mizushima et al. (WO2017150662Al) at para. 9-10 of the non-final Office Action dated 05/07/2025 is WITHDRAWN because Examples of Mizushima contain sodium stearate. The double patenting rejections dated 05/07/2025 are WITHDRAWN because none of the patent or patent applications claims meets all of the structural limitations of instant Claim 1 or Claim 2. The 35 USC 103 rejection based on Tse et al. (US20060189744 Al) at para. 11 of the non-final Office Action dated 05/07/2025 is MAINTAINED. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 11/05/2025. In particular, each of claim 1 and claim 2 is added a new limitation that the resin composition does not comprise sodium stearate. Thus, the following action is properly made final. The text of those sections of Title 35 U. S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse et al. (US20060189744 Al). Tse teaches a resin composition comprising a polyolefin resin and a nucleating agent (ab.), wherein the commercial nucleating agent NA-11 is one of the preferred nucleating agent (Table 1). NA-11 has the structure of the claimed general formula (1). Tse further teaches the resin composition comprising a filler ([0340]) and a thermoplastic elastomer ([0126]). Futhermore, the examples of Tse do not contain sodium stearate. Moreover, Tse discloses that addition of the nucleating agent to polyolefin making the composition having a high crystallization rate ([0004] and [0028]), therefore, one skilled artisan would reasonably infer that both t2/t1 and T2/T1 of the resin composition < 1. However, Tse is silent on the specific values, nonetheless, the claimed t2/t1 and T2/T1 are related to crystallization rate. A faster crystallization has advantages such as shortening molding cycle time, improving transparency of a molded article, however, a faster crystallization has the disadvantage of reducing impact resistance. Thus, one skilled artisan must balance the advantages and disadvantage caused by crystallization rate, therefore, the t2/t1 and T2/T1 values would be considered a result effective variable before the effective filling date of instant application. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed t2/t1 ratio or T2/T1 values cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the t2/t1 and T2/Tl values to reach a desired crystallization speed, consequently, resulting in shorter molding cycle time, improved transparency of a molded article balanced with acceptable impact resistance; since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b ).) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments on Mizushima et al. (US 11,999,838 Bl). have been considered but are moot because the above rejection does not rely on Mizushima. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Tse et al. US '744 fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features of the present invention, In response: the disclosure of Tse has discussed above. Although the preferred embodiments of Tse do not include elastomer and filler, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures "including unpreferred embodiments" must be considered (see MPEP 2123 I). 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 HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM. 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. /HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2022
Application Filed
May 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Nov 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595406
LIQUID CHLORIDE SALT-BASED POLYMER SUSPENSION FLUIDS WITH POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL DISPERSANTS AND APPLICATION TO DRAG REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570842
THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER COMPOSITION AND SHAPED ARTICLE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570837
POLYCARBONATE RESIN COMPOSITION AND MOLDED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552958
NOVEL TWO-COMPONENT OUTER COATING CONTAINING POLYASPARTIC ACID ESTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534547
RESIN PARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
71%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 109 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