Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/029,318

METHOD FOR RECOVERING SOLVENT AND UNREACTED MATERIAL IN FINISHER FOR POLYOLEFIN ELASTOMER PREPARATION PROCESS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 29, 2023
Examiner
SERGENT, RABON A
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hanwha Totalenergies Petrochemical Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
525 granted / 970 resolved
-10.9% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 970 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Detailed Office Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Indefiniteness Rejection 2. 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. 3. Claims 1-10 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. Firstly, applicants has drafted the claims using inconsistent terminology causing the claims to be ambiguous. Specifically, within the second step of claim 1, the language, “all of flow vaporized in the finisher” has been used; however, it is unclear if this language encompasses solvent and unreacted material of the first step as well as the water. Furthermore, within the steps, applicants inconsistently use the terminology “solvent” and “hydrocarbons”; however, it is unclear if these terms are interchangeable. It is further unclear from where the hydrocarbons stem, in the context of the process. Secondly, with respect to claim 1, the relationship of the elastomer in terms of its introduction and processing relative to both the finisher and the water injection is not clearly set forth. The claimed process should clearly specify how each component or stream is introduced into the processing equipment. Thirdly, with respect to claim 1, the language, “high temperature” and “low pressure”, is subjective; quantitatively, it unclear how to interpret this language. Fourthly, with respect to claim 2, multiple flows are referenced; however, they have not been clearly distinguished from one another, causing the claim to be ambiguous. Fifthly, with respect claim 8, the language, “relatively low boiling point”, is subjective. It is unclear what constitutes such a boiling point. Sixthly, with respect to claim 9, it is unclear how to interpret “is rich”. Examiner’s Comment 4. To the extent the examiner has been able to interpret the claims in view of the indefiniteness issues set forth above, the examiner notes that the clams are distinguished from the most relevant prior art, US Patent 3,476, 736, in that the instant process treats the hydrocarbon with an absorption column and distillation column is series. Conclusion 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rabon A Sergent whose telephone number is (571)272-. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM, ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /RABON A SERGENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589153
POLYURETHANE EXCIPIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583964
POLYTHIOL COMPOSITION, POLYMERIZABLE COMPOSITION, RESIN, MOLDED ARTICLE, OPTICAL MATERIAL, AND LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570785
THERMOPLASTIC POLYURETHANE RESIN ELASTOMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559586
COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING URETDIONE GROUPS CROSSLINKING AT LOW TEMPERATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545760
URETHANE RESIN COMPOSITION, FILM, AND SYNTHETIC LEATHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+29.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 970 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month