Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/118,364

HEAT AND SHOCK RESISTANT TRANSPARENT MEMBRANE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Examiner
MIGGINS, MICHAEL C
Art Unit
1782
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kuraray Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
806 granted / 999 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1043
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 999 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 4-8 and 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/25. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3 and 9-17 in the reply filed on 11/18/25 is acknowledged. Applicant’s request to examine claims 18-20 since claims 18-20 are dependent (directly or indirectly) from claim 1 is denied because dependent claims are also subject to restriction and claims 18-20 are patentably distinct as set forth in the Election/Restriction requirement of 9/18/25. 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. Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the polyolefin layer (A)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the polyolefin layer (B)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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, 3 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by WO 99/54133 (provided herein). WO 99/54133 discloses a multilayer structure comprising: a first polyolefin layer comprising a first polyolefin resin and an elastomer, a gas barrier layer comprising ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and a polyamide, and a second polyolefin layer comprising a second polyolefin resin, wherein the gas barrier layer is between the first and second polyolefin layer (page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 9, page 11, line 9 through page 12, line 15, page 13, line 11 through page 14, line 14, page 15, lines 8-27, page 16, lines 1-3 and claim 21). WO 99/54133 discloses wherein the elastomer comprises an elastomer selected form the group consisting of a low crystalline or amorphous a-olefin copolymer, a block copolymer comprising an aromatic vinyl polymer block, and a hydrogenated product of the block copolymer, wherein the polyamide is a nylon, wherein a content of nylon in the gas barrier layer is from 1 to 30% by mass, wherein there is at least one tie layer between the first olefin layer and the gas barrier layer, and there is at least one tie layer between the gas barrier layer and the second olefin layer, wherein a thickness of the multilayer structure is less than 300 um, wherein a ratio of a thickness T1 of the first polyolefin layer to a thickness T2 of the second polyolefin layer (T1 / T2) is = 0.5, wherein a thickness T1 of the first polyolefin layer is from 5 to 80 um, wherein a thickness T2 of the second polyolefin layer is from 30 to 200 um, and wherein a thickness of the gas barrier layer is from 2 to 20% of a total thickness of the multilayer structure, wherein a thickness of the first polyolefin layer is different from a thickness of the second polyolefin layer, and the structure is asymmetric about an axis through a midpoint of a thickness of the multilayer structure, wherein the multilayer structure is transparent (page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 9, page 11, line 9 through page 12, line 15, page 13, line 11 through page 14, line 14, page 15, lines 8-27, page 16, lines 1-3 and claim 21). 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(s) 1-3 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 6,461,696) in view of WO 99/54133 (provided herein). Ling discloses a multilayer structure comprising: a first polyolefin layer comprising a first polyolefin resin and an elastomer, a gas barrier layer, and a second polyolefin layer comprising a second polyolefin resin, wherein the gas barrier layer is between the first and second polyolefin layer (column 1, lines 20-45, column 5, lines 9-39, column 6, lines 39-65, column 7, lines 46-58, column 9, lines 27-64, column 10, lines 1-58). Ling does not disclose a gas barrier layer comprising ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and a polyamide. WO 99/54133 discloses a gas barrier layer comprising ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and a polyamide (page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 9, page 11, line 9 through page 12, line 15, page 13, line 11 through page 14, line 14, page 15, lines 8-27, page 16, lines 1-3 and claim 21) in a multilayer polyolefin film for the purpose of providing improved gas barrier properties (page 15, lines 8-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided a gas barrier layer comprising ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and a polyamide in Ling in order to provide improved gas barrier properties as taught or suggested by WO 99/54133. WO 99/54133 discloses wherein the elastomer comprises an elastomer selected form the group consisting of a low crystalline or amorphous a-olefin copolymer, a block copolymer comprising an aromatic vinyl polymer block, and a hydrogenated product of the block copolymer, wherein the polyamide is a nylon, wherein a content of nylon in the gas barrier layer is from 1 to 30% by mass, wherein there is at least one tie layer between the first olefin layer and the gas barrier layer, and there is at least one tie layer between the gas barrier layer and the second olefin layer, wherein a thickness of the multilayer structure is less than 300 um, wherein a ratio of a thickness T1 of the first polyolefin layer to a thickness T2 of the second polyolefin layer (T1 / T2) is = 0.5, wherein a thickness T1 of the first polyolefin layer is from 5 to 80 um, wherein a thickness T2 of the second polyolefin layer is from 30 to 200 um, and wherein a thickness of the gas barrier layer is from 2 to 20% of a total thickness of the multilayer structure, wherein a thickness of the first polyolefin layer is different from a thickness of the second polyolefin layer, and the structure is asymmetric about an axis through a midpoint of a thickness of the multilayer structure, wherein the multilayer structure is transparent (page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 9, page 11, line 9 through page 12, line 15, page 13, line 11 through page 14, line 14, page 15, lines 8-27, page 16, lines 1-3 and claim 21). Ling discloses wherein a content of the elastomer in the first polyolefin layer is from 1 % to 40 % by mass and wherein the first polyolefin resin comprises a polypropylene, and the second polyolefin resin comprises a polypropylene (column 1, lines 20-45, column 5, lines 9-39, column 6, lines 39-65, column 7, lines 46-58, column 9, lines 27-64, column 10, lines 1-58). Ling does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the first polyolefin layer (A) to a WVTR of the second polyolefin layer (B) (A/B) is >2.0 and wherein a difference in a Tg of the first polyolefin resin and a Tg of the elastomer is larger than 20°C, and wherein a difference in a Tg of the second polyolefin resin and a Tg of the elastomer is larger than 20 °C. However, finding the optimum range or value for a result effective variable is obvious and well within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to have provided wherein a ratio of a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the first polyolefin layer (A) to a WVTR of the second polyolefin layer (B) (A/B) is >2.0 and wherein a difference in a Tg of the first polyolefin resin and a Tg of the elastomer is larger than 20°C, and wherein a difference in a Tg of the second polyolefin resin and a Tg of the elastomer is larger than 20 °C in order to provide improved gas barrier properties and/or mechanical properties. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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. /MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782 MCM December 11, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 17, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590652
THIN-WALLED HEAT SHRINK TUBING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589881
Co-Cured UV/Visible Light-Resistant Coated Composite Material for Aircraft Wing Fuel Tank Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590653
FUEL HOSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583989
BIODEGRADABLE COMPOSITIONS AND ARTICLES FORMED THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577022
PACKAGING BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
81%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+16.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 999 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