Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/036,227

FREE-RADICALLY POLYMERIZABLE CROSSLINKER, CURABLE COMPOSITION, AND ADHESIVE THEREFROM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
HALL, DEVE V.
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
676 granted / 902 resolved
+9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
941
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 902 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Double Patenting The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Double Patent No. #1 Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. US Patent No. ‘172 claims a composition comprising a compound comprising divalent segments L and at least two X groups, wherein the divalent segments L are represented by the formula: PNG media_image1.png 657 478 media_image1.png Greyscale The scope of the present claims encompasses the scope of the claims in US Patent No. ‘172. Double Patent No. #2 Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/036,230 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given. US Application No. ‘230 claims a free-radically polymerizable crosslinker composed of divalent segments Z represented by the formula PNG media_image2.png 778 476 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 56 425 media_image3.png Greyscale The scope of the present claims encompasses the scope of the claims in US Publication No. ‘230. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Double Patent No. #3 Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/268,042 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. US Application No. ‘042 claims a composition comprising a compound comprising divalent segments L and at least two X groups, wherein the divalent segments L are represented by the formula: PNG media_image4.png 617 473 media_image4.png Greyscale The scope of the present claims encompasses the scope of the claims in US Publication No. ‘042. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Double Patent No. #4 Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/268,173 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. US Application No. ‘173 claims a composition comprising a compound comprising divalent segments L and at least two X groups in an amount of 20 percent to 35 percent by weight, based on the total weight of acrylic-functional compounds in the composition, wherein the divalent segments L are represented by the formula: PNG media_image5.png 594 466 media_image5.png Greyscale The scope of the present claims encompasses the scope of the claims in US Publication No. ‘173. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Double Patent No. #5 Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/291,552 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below. US Application No. ‘552 claims a composition comprising a compound comprising divalent segments L and at least two X groups in an amount from 15 percent to 22 percent by weight, based on the total weight of acrylic-functional compounds in the composition, wherein the divalent segments L are represented by the formula: PNG media_image6.png 211 482 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 138 453 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 351 464 media_image8.png Greyscale The scope of the present claims encompasses the scope of the claims in US Publication No. ‘552. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. PRIOR ART BACCEI, one of the closest prior art of record, fails to teach the a free-radically polymerizable crosslinker comprising divalent segments Z represented by the formula PNG media_image9.png 582 600 media_image9.png Greyscale BACCEI teaches graft polymer segments of the prepolymers are derived from poly(alkylene)ether polyol backbones to which have been grafted vinyl monomers or polymers. The graft polymers conform to the structural formula: PNG media_image10.png 102 268 media_image10.png Greyscale Wherein R3 and R4 are alkenyl and/or branched alkenyl radicals having 2 to about 10 carbon atoms; Q is a vinyl polymeric or copolymeric radical which may be linear or branched alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, aromatic, cycloaliphatic or heterocyclic, containing 2 to about 12 carbon/hetero atoms , x may range from 0 to about 200 which does not satisfy the claim limitations of the present invention. Therefore, BACCEI does not disclose or render obvious the present invention. DRISCOLL et al., one of the closest prior of record, fails to teach the free-radically polymerizable crosslinker comprising divalent segments Z represented by the formula PNG media_image9.png 582 600 media_image9.png Greyscale DRISCOLL teaches polymerizable mixtures comprising acryloyl and methacryloyl derivatives of oligomers having the formula: PNG media_image11.png 654 467 media_image11.png Greyscale which does not satisfy the claim limitations of the present invention. Therefore, DRISCOLL fails to disclose or render obvious the present invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, 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, 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. DEVE V. HALL Primary Examiner Art Unit 1763 /DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600670
PRECAST CONCRETE MOLDED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595360
ROOFING COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING LINEAR LOW-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593848
TRANSPARENT ANTIVIRAL/ANTIMICROBIAL COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595319
RUBBER COMPOSITION AND PNEUMATIC TIRE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595354
METHOD FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF A POLYCARBONATE COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
75%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 902 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