Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/247,221

POLYURETHANE ELASTIC FIBER

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 29, 2023
Examiner
STONEHOCKER, VIRGINIA LEE
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toray Opelontex Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 29 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.5%
+2.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 5 are of improper format because they contain a period ending the claim sentence but then describes the polyurethanes A and B which are assumed to be part of the claims. Claims are to be written as one sentence each, see MPEP 608.01(m). Claim 4 is objected to because the phrase “any one of” in line 1 before “claim 1” should be deleted so it reads “according to claim 1.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al, JP4974086B2. Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches a method for producing a polyurethane elastic yarn comprising polymerizing the polyurethanes in solution ¶¶[0010, 0030, 0040], mixing the polyurethanes together in solution ¶[0049] and then spinning the polymer solution to form an elastic yarn ¶¶[0009, 0051]. Suzuki teaches in example 4 ¶[0079], for the first polyurethane solution (A2), raw materials polytetramethylene (PTMG), methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), and ethylene glycol are polymerized in DMAc. This reads on polyurethane A of claim 5. The second polyurethane is labeled B1, and is a DMAc solution of commercial product E790PNAT ¶[0073], which has been polymerized separately from polyurethane A. The as-filed specification provides evidence that E790PNAT is formed from adipate diol (a polyester diol), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), and butylene glycol, as shown in the comparative example 5 ¶[82] and table 1-1 of the instant specification, this satisfies the polyurethane B of claim 5. The separate polyurethane solutions are mixed to prepare solution E4 and then dry spun to form an elastic yarn, ¶[0079-0080]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Suzuki teaches the method of making the polyurethane elastic yarns, but does not teach, suggest, or disclose the claimed heat capacity or crystallization peak for the compositions. And because the composition’s weight percents of example 4 are similar to applicant’s comparative example 5, it is clear by applicant’s results that the composition does not have the claimed heat capacity, and therefore does not read on claim 1. Another close prior art is CN106592016A to Xu et al. Xu teaches a polyurethane elastic fiber comprising two polyurethanes with different melting points, ¶[0007]. Each polyurethane is comprised of a diisocyanate, a polyether glycol, and a small molecule diol as chain extender ¶[0009]. Instead of solution polymerizing, Xu mixes the materials in a twin-screw extruder to form each polyurethane in the form of pellets, ¶[0009]. The two polyurethanes are then blended together in the extruder and then spun into a fiber, ¶[0013]. While Xu broadly discloses the same raw materials for the polyurethanes as applicant, ¶¶[0015-0017], Xu does not disclose the heat capacity nor the crystallization peak of the resultant fiber. Also, the process of making the fiber is completely different, and Xu adds a plasticizer to the blend ¶0022], which would affect the heat related properties of the fiber. Xu does not exemplify compositions that match applicant’s inventive examples; therefore the heat capacity and crystallization peak are not obvious or inherent for Xu’s polyurethane fibers. Regarding the heat capacity and crystallization peak, a relevant prior art is JP2010150720A to Fukui et al. Fukui teaches a polyurethane elastic yarn that has excellent heat resistance during dyeing ¶[0011] with a crystallization energy of 10 J/g or more ¶[0012]. Fukui discloses the polyurethane yarn is made of only one polyurethane, comprising a polytrimethylene ether glycol, diisocyanate, and a diamine chain extender ¶[0015], and is polymerized in solution ¶[0026]. Fukui also discloses the crystallinity of the polytrimethylene ether glycol is important to the composition, increasing the heat resistance of the yarn, ¶[0015]. So, while the yarn of Fukui may have the necessary heat properties, the yarn is made of only one polyurethane and is composed of different structural units compared to applicant’s polyurethanes. The heat properties of Fukui cannot be generally applied to the polyurethane yarns of Suzuki or Xu, because they are too different and the heat-resistant results of Fukui are tied to the specific polyurethane. Therefore the teachings of Fukui cannot be combined with the teachings of Suzuki or Xu to achieve the claimed heat capacity. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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. /V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600859
POLYAMIDE COMPOSITIONS WITH HIGH HEAT PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577396
CARBON REDUCTION TYPE THERMOPLASTIC POLYURETHANE ELASTOMER COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570814
HEAT-SHRINKABLE POLYESTER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565598
COMPOSITION FOR COATING AN OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565596
POLYANILINE COMPOSITION, COATING FILM, POLYANILINE-CONTAINING POROUS BODY, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COATING FILM OR POLYANILINE-CONTAINING POROUS BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 29 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