Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/972,998

Sustainable High Density Polyethylene and Process For Making Same

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Examiner
MENON, KRISHNAN S
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Celanese International Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

60%
Career Allow Rate
876 granted / 1472 resolved
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
73 pending
1545
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11, 14, 20 and 24 in the reply filed on 5/9/25 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over, as a commercially available material, with evidence from Wang et al, Effect of molecular weight on rolled high density polyethylene: 1. Structure, morphology and anisotropic mechanical behavior, Polymer, 1993, Volume 34, Number 13, and Celanese product brochure. Claims are directed at HDPE, and further limited by molecular weight range and density, and the source of the ethylene monomer. At the outset, the examiner submits that claims are for a product, HDPE. The process of how it is made or the sources of raw materials do not limit a claim for a product. MPEP 2113. HDPE is well-known and has been commercially available for many decades, and is therefore not a patentable product. The range of molecular weight and density in the claims are the properties of HDPE. Wang is cited as a source reference for the properties of HDPE. Density of HDPE can be seen in Fig. 1. Molecular weights – see the experimental section. Further, HDPE resin powder is available commercially. The details of density, mol weight, bulk density and D50 are available online, see for example, the Celanese brochure. Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over, Siracus et al, Bio-Polyethylene (Bio-PE), Bio-Polypropylene (Bio-PP) and Bio-Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): Recent Developments in Bio-Based Polymers Analogous to Petroleum-Derived Ones for Packaging and Engineering Applications, Polymers 2020, 12, 1641; doi:10.3390/polym12081641, with evidence from Wang cited in rejection 1. This reference teaches that bio-based polyethylene including HDPE is known since the 2000. See abstract and section 3, Bio-Based Polyethylene. Regarding the density and molecular weight, see Wang as described in rejection 1 above. As shown therein, source of ethylene is not a patentable limitation for HDPE. Nonetheless, Siracus teaches the claimed subject matter, except for the properties of HDPE. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments citing isotopic signatures, radiocarbon content or stable isotope ratio are not persuasive: there is no evidence for such differences. Notwithstanding, it is well-known that ethylene would polymerize to polyethylene, irrespective of these differences. Wang was cited for the characteristics of HDPE, not for the source of ethylene. The source of ethylene is only process relates. See MPEP 2113 for product by process claims. Regarding whether polyethylene having a different C14 content is patentable is moot, since Siracus does teach HDPE from bio-sources. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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. /KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2022
Application Filed
May 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12594366
TECHNIQUES FOR DIALYSIS BASED ON RELATIVE BLOOD VOLUME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582944
METHODS FOR TREATING POROUS MEMBRANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577705
ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A CENTER-FLUID DISTRIBUTOR AND A MULTI-FIBER SPINNERET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577130
DRINKING WATER DISPENSER WITH ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566160
PILLAR STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate 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
60%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1472 resolved cases by this examiner