Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/013,229

CROSSLINKABLE OLEFIN/SILANE INTERPOLYMER COMPOSITIONS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 27, 2022
Priority
Jun 24, 2020 — CN PCT/CN2020/098045 +1 more
Examiner
SCOTT, ANGELA C
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dow Global Technologies LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
556 granted / 890 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
938
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 890 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 13, 18, and 20 are amended, claims 11 and 16 are cancelled, and claims 21 and 22 are added. Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 3, in line 3, delete “wherein” as it is a repeated word; and in lines 3 and 4, the quotation marks around ‘the active oxygen atom in component b’ and ‘MH-ML’ are not needed. Regarding claim 9, in line 9, delete “wherein” as it is a repeated word; and in lines 9 and 10, the quotation marks around ‘the active oxygen atom in component b’ and ‘MH-ML’ are not needed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation "the active oxygen atom in component b" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be interpreted as “…wherein component b contains an active oxygen atom, and the composition has a mole ratio of the active oxygen atom in component b to component a of ≥ 2.0…”. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the active oxygen atom in component b" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be interpreted as “…wherein component b contains an active oxygen atom, and the composition has a mole ratio of the active oxygen atom in component b to component a of ≥ 2.0…”. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation "the active oxygen atom in component b" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be interpreted as “…wherein component b contains an active oxygen atom, and the composition has a mole ratio of the active oxygen atom in component b to component a of ≤ 30.0.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 13-15, and 17-22 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed to a process of forming a composition and the composition itself wherein the composition comprises at least one olefin/silane interpolymer comprising at least one Si-H group, at least one peroxide, and optionally, at least one crosslinking coagent; and wherein the silane is derived from a silane monomer selected from Formula 1: A-(SiBC-O)x-Si-EFH, where A is an alkenyl group; B is a hydrocarbyl group or hydrogen, C is a hydrocarbyl group or hydrogen, and where B and C may be the same or different; H is hydrogen, and x is ≥ 0; E is a hydrocarbyl group or hydrogen, F is a hydrocarbyl group or hydrogen, and where E and F may be the same or different. The instant specification defines an “olefin/silane interpolymer” as a random interpolymer that comprises, in polymerized form, 50 wt % or a majority weight percent of an olefin, based on the weight of the interpolymer, and a silane monomer; and is formed by the copolymerization (for example, using a bis-biphenyl-phenoxy metal complex) of at least the olefin and the silane monomer (¶67). None of the prior art of record teaches or renders obvious a composition comprising an olefin/silane interpolymer as claimed and defined above together with a peroxide to form a crosslinked composition. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Jun 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703787
RUBBER COMPOSITION FOR TIRE AND TIRE CONTAINING SAME
5y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12630697
Polyaminosiloxane Water Tree Repellant for Electrical Insulation
3y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617940
Curable Composition and Cured Material
4y 9m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12612529
ETHYLENE/alpha-OLEFIN COPOLYMER COMPOSITION AND APPLICATION THEREOF
4y 0m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12593762
PLANT FIBER BIOCOMPOSITES
3y 7m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+18.9%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 890 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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