Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/257,338

CROSS-LINKED POLYARYLETHERKETONES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 14, 2023
Priority
Dec 18, 2020 — DE 10 2020 134 149.0 +2 more
Examiner
KRASNOW, NICHOLAS R
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Freudenberg SE
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
268 granted / 405 resolved
+1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
456
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.0%
+18.0% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 405 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 26, 27, 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 109251468 A). In reference to claim 1, Li discloses molding from a matrix obtained from a reaction of a polyaryletherketone (PAEK) with at least one crosslinker capable of thermal crosslinking with keto groups of the PAEK to form at least two imine groups per crosslinker molecule, the crosslinker being selected from: polyamides (“18 pts. wt. polyetheretherketone, …6 pts. wt. curing agent. …The curing agent is prepared by mixing an aliphatic curing agent and a polyamide curing agent in a ratio of 2:3:1.”. Li describes the material being useful for additive manufacturing. This reads on a molding.) The cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property of being formed by a particular mixture (i.e., polyamide reacting with keto groups on PAEK to form crosslinks). However, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (e.g., reaction product of a mixture containing a polyamide crosslinker and a PAEK). In reference to claim 3, see claim 1 of Li (e.g., “aluminum nitride powder 1-2… titanium dioxide 0.2-0.4 %”) 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1, 3-4, 23, 25, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shroff (US 20180051202) In reference to claim 1, Shroff discloses a matrix obtained from a reaction of a polyaryletherketone (PAEK) (“PEEK “ [Table 1]) with at least one crosslinker capable of thermal crosslinking with keto groups of the PAEK to form at least two imine groups per crosslinker molecule, the crosslinker being selected from: polyamides (“Examples of hardeners may include… polyamides” [P0015]) Shroff uses the matrix as a coating. The term coating overlaps with a molding. Alternatively, Shroff discloses forming a coated particle comprising, e.g., sand coated with the matrix. The cited prior art does not specifically disclose that the structure has the property of being formed by a particular mixture (i.e., polyamide reacting with keto groups on PAEK to form crosslinks). However, the cited prior art teaches an identical or substantially identical structure as claimed (e.g., reaction product of a mixture containing a polyamide crosslinker and a PAEK). In reference to claim 3, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Shroff disclose a coated particle comprising, e.g., sand coated with the matrix. Sand reads on a filling agent. In reference to claim 4, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Shroff disclose a coated particle. This reads on a coating. In reference to claim 23, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Shroff describes the invention being for oil and gas. In reference to claim 25, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See paragraph 15 of Shroff. In reference to claim 29, the prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See table 1 of Shroff (“PEEK “ [Table 1]). Conclusion US 20170218115 A1 discloses a “polyamide curing agent composition, i.e., the reaction product of the amine component and the dimer fatty acid component” Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm. 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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. /NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12611526
METHOD FOR PRODUCING BALLOON CATHETER
4y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611820
METHOD FOR JOINING FIBER COMPOSITE PARTS BY ULTRASONIC WELDING
3y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611797
PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF SLABS MADE OF RESIN-BONDED MINERAL GRITS
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611800
GLASS FIBER REINFORCED THERMOPLASTIC POLYMER COMPOSITION COMPRISING A THERMOPLASTIC POLYMER COMPOSITION WITH HIGH FLOWABILITY
2y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12614813
SEPARATOR THICKNESS ADJUSTMENT DEVICE AND METHOD, AND WINDING ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY PRODUCTION SYSTEM
2y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+12.0%)
3y 3m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 405 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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