Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/906,050

POWDERED MATERIAL (P) CONTAINING POLY(ARYLENE SULFIDE) (PAS) POLYMER AND ITS USE FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 09, 2022
Examiner
BROOKS, KREGG T
Art Unit
1764
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Syensqo Specialty Polymers Usa LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14, 16, and 18-22 as amended are pending, with claims 10-14 withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 1-9, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04-122473 A (“Kobayashi”) in view of JP 2017-043654 A (“Watanabe”). Partial machine translations of these references are enclosed. As to claims 1-4 and 9, Kobayashi teaches a powdered polyarylene sulfide (PAS) (translation, p. 2). Kobayashi teaches that the PAS has the following general formula: PNG media_image1.png 106 208 media_image1.png Greyscale , which meets either recited formula (I) and (II) or formulae (I) and (III), where j is 0 in each case as required by claims 1 and 4, where all structures are recurring units p, q, and r as required by claims 2 and 3, and that nq and nr are greater than equal to 0. The ratio of m/n taught by Kobayashi ranges from 1 to 30 %, which encompasses the recited range for (nq+nr)/(np+nq+nr) Examples 1 and 2 use 1,4-dichlorobenzene and 1,3-dichloro and 1,2-dichlorobenzene in ratios that the aforementioned ratio is calculated as 10% and 7%, respectively (see examples 1 and 2, translation, pp. 6-7). While not exemplified, the general teaching in the case here where the comonomer is only unit II, encompasses the range of 1 to 7 mol percent of nq.. Kobayashi is silent as to the recited d50 value for the powder. However, Kobayashi teaches that the powder should be fine, preferably passing through 100 mesh or lower (translation, p. 6), which means a maximum particle size of the powder of 150 micrometers (d100), such that d50 would be 150 micrometers or lower, which encompasses the recited range. Furthermore, it is known to use PAS particles in a preferred average particle diameter of 10 to 70 micrometers (para. 0025) for providing smooth coatings in powder coating applications, as well as 3D printing such as powder sintering, thus additive manufacturing (para. 0051). This range is within the range recited by claim 1, and substantially overlaps the range of claim 9. As such, the formation of the PAS resin of Kobayashi having excellent adhesion and smoothness with the particle size as taught by Watanabe, as taught to be appropriate for powder coatings and additive manufacturing, is an obvious modification suggested by Watanabe. As to claim 5, Kobayashi does not state the heat of fusion as recited. However, given that Kobayashi teaches a polymer having the recited structure, it is reasonable to expect the PAS to have the recited heat of fusion. As to claims 6 and 16 , Kobayashi teaches the melting point of less than 280 degrees C, 278 degrees C, and 275 degrees C (see examples 1 and 2, translation, pp. 6-7). While Kobayashi is silent as to the melting point at the second heat, it is reasonable to conclude, given the identity of the monomers forming the PAS, that the second heat melting point would also be in the recited range. As to claims 7 and 8, Kobayashi does not discuss the flow control agent. Watanabe teaches compounding polyarylene sulfide powder with inorganic fine particles (para. 0033), including fumed silica (para. 0039). Watanabe teaches that these fine particles improve fluidity of a composition for powder coatings and additive manufacturing. As to claim 18, Kobayashi does not discuss the flow control agent. Watanabe teaches compounding polyarylene sulfide powder with inorganic fine particles (para. 0033) to improve fluidity of the composition. Watanabe teaches the use of 0.1 to 5 parts of the fine particles with respect to the PAS resin and other granular material (para. 0043) and 25 to 150 parts per 100 parts of PAS powder (para. 0016). It is calculated that Watanabe suggests 0.04 to 4 wt % of flow agent, which is within the recited range. While not exemplified, Watanabe teaches that the fine particles range from 20 to 500 nm, which overlaps the recited range (para. 0034), and therefore, particle size within the range is an obvious modification suggested by Kobayashi. As to claims 20 and 21, Kobayashi in view of Watanabe do not discuss the bulk density and BET surface area. However, given that Watanabe teaches obtaining powder in the recited particle size range, using the milling method, it is reasonable to expect that PAS particles subject to the treatment to recited particle size would have the recited bulk density and BET surface area. As to claim 22, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Kobayashi teaches that the powder should be fine, preferably passing through 100 mesh or lower (translation, p. 6), which is less than 149 micrometers. This can be viewed as a distribution of all particles (d100) less than 149 nm, which meets the recited range for d99 and d90. Kobayashi does not discuss a d10 value. Furthermore, it is known from Watanabe to use PAS particles in a preferred average particle diameter of 10 to 70 micrometers (para. 0025) for providing smooth coatings in powder coating applications, as well as 3D printing such as powder sintering, thus additive manufacturing (para. 0051). Watanabe further teaches a high uniformity of particle size, measured by a quotient of d60/d10 (para. 0028), is preferably less than 2 (para. 0026). Given that d60 would be higher than d50 (which is in a range of 10 to 70 micrometers), it follows that a distribution of PAS having a uniformity of less than 2 would have d10 in excess of 0.1 micrometers. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 19 is 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: Kobayashi does not teach or suggest melt index of claim 19 as currently amended. Other prior art, including US 4,711,796 (“Yu”), teaches similar polyarylene sulfide powder having the same monomeric composition as recited by claim 19 (Table I, examples I and J), and a mesh size encompassing the recited particle size, but does not provide sufficient rationale to arrive simultaneously the melt flow rate and particle size in conjunction with the monomer composition as recited for claim 19. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, while Kobayashi does not exemplify the recited range for the unit of Formula II, Kobayashi teaches a range clearly encompassing this amount of the recited repeating unit. Applicant’s evidence does not show any unexpected results with the closest prior art of Kobayashi, such as resins having 10 mol percent of repeating unit II. With respect to claim 21, the comparative examples are prepared by a different process. The process of Kobayashi to prepare powder of the recited particle size is sufficiently close to that of applicant’s that the same surface area would be expected. Conclusion 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

Sep 09, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 01, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2026
Non-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

3-4
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