Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/038,324

OLEFIN-BASED POLYMER AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 23, 2023
Examiner
LISTVOYB, GREGORY
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hanwha Solutions Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
798 granted / 1195 resolved
+1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1234
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1195 resolved cases

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 . 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. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen et al (US 20050159300), cited in IDS. Jensen teaches an olefin-based polymer which has (1) a density of 0.917 g/cm3; (2) a melt index (I2.16) of 1.09 g/10 min as measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190° C.; and (3) a ratio between a melt index (I21.6) measured with a load of 21.6 kg and a melt index (I2.16) measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190° C, where melt flow ratio MFR or HLMI/MI is of 20.8 (see Example 11.1 at Table 8B at 0388). Note that according to claimed equation 1 , MFR value at density value of 0.917 g/cm3 should be between 18.62 and 24.62. Regarding claims 15 and 16, Jensen teaches a corresponding method of polymerization, which includes a contacting an ethylene—1-hexene reaction mixture with hybrid supported catalyst (see 0361). In addition, Jensen teaches that gas phase reaction represents one of the options for olefin polymerization (see 0284). Thus, all limitation of claims 1,2 and 15 are met. Regarding claim 3-5, Jensen discloses the following hybrid catalytic system (A+I) to obtain the polymer above: PNG media_image1.png 306 390 media_image1.png Greyscale This hybrid system is almost identical to the one used in the instant Application. Indeed, Applicant uses the same Zr component (i.e., Chemical Formula 2-1 of instant claim 6). In reference to claim 7, Jensen teaches the ratio between first and second metallocene is 1:0.937 (see Table 1 Entry 6 at 0359). Regarding claims 8-11, both Applicant and Jensen use widely known co-catalysts and carriers. For instance both of them use methyl aluminoxane (MAO) (see Jensen at 0240 and printed publication at Preparation Example 1, see 0083), which corresponds with claimed Chemical Formula 5. The molar ratio of the aluminum in the alumoxane to the metallocene in the composition is usually from about 1:10 to about 100,000:1 (see 0242). The weight ratio of the chemically treated Solid oxide to the organoaluminum compound may range from about 1:5 to about 1,000:1 (see 0268). In reference to claims 12-14, Jensen uses 1-Hexene as a comonomer (see Table 1 at 0359). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen. Regarding claim 6 Jensen teaches A+I catalyst system, described above. While the component A is the same as Chemical Formula 2-1 of instant claim 6, the component I is a homolog of Chemical Formula 1-1 claimed. In particular, claimed Chemical Formula 1-1 and Jensen’s component I both represent Hf-based catalyst with two substituted two cyclopentadienyl-type ligands. However, Jensen teaches n-butyl radical substitution, while Applicant recites n-propyl radical. Jensen teaches both propyl and n-butyl radical among alkyl substitutions in general catalyst description (see 0163). In addition, propyl and butyl radicals are chemical homologs. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to interchangeably use propyl and butyl substitutions in Jensen’s catalyst, unless unexpected results are demonstrated. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F. 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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (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 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. GL /GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590182
POLYPHENYLENE ETHER MELT EXTRUSION FORMED BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING POLYPHENYLENE ETHER MELT EXTRUSION FORMED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590184
POLYIMIDE RESIN MOLDED BODY AND PRODUCTION METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583987
SURFACE MODIFYING COMPOSITION, MODIFIED PRODUCT, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING MODIFIED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583974
POLYAMIDE-IMIDE-BASED FILM, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND COVER WINDOW AND DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583983
POLYIMIDE FILM HAVING HIGH DIMENSIONAL STABILITY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
67%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+29.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1195 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