Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/269,503

METHOD FOR PRODUCING HYDRATED ETHYLENE-VINYL ALCOHOL COPOLYMER PELLETS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 23, 2023
Examiner
SCOTT, ANGELA C
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kuraray Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
549 granted / 875 resolved
-2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
924
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 875 resolved cases

Office Action

§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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 6 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. Regarding claim 6 , claim 6 recites the limitation "the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this limitation refers to the water-containing ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer of claim 1 or the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer of claim 5. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted to refer to the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer introduced in claim 5. 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (US 2010/0289172). Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4-6 , Fujimura et al. teaches a process for producing ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) pellets (¶1) comprising using a sealable container (vessel) having an EVOH solution feed pipe and a water/alcohol outlet pipe provided at an upper portion thereof, a vapor outlet pipe provided at the top thereof, an aqueous solution feed pipe provided at a lower portion and an EVOH extraction pipe provided at the bottom thereof, and including a heating jacket and a paddle impeller (¶81) . An EVOH solution containing 100 parts by weight of an EVOH having an ethylene content of 29 mol% , 75 parts by weight of water, 75 parts by weight of methanol (b.p. = 64.7° C) , 0.3 parts by weight of acetic acid and 0.1 part by weight of boric acid was fed into the container from the upper EVOH solution feed pipe, and an aqueous solution containing 0.05% of acetic acid, 0.04% of sodium phosphate, 0.005% of calcium phosphate and 0.007% of boric acid was continuously fed into the container from the lower portion, whereby the EVOH solution and the aqueous solution were continuously brought into contact with each other with stirring (¶82) . A water/alcohol liquid mixture was allowed to overflow from the upper portion of the container, while a water/alcohol vapor mixture was extracted from the top pipe (¶82) . A pasty hydrous EVOH composition was extracted from the bottom of the container (¶84) . The hydrous EVOH composition thus obtained contained 100 parts by weight of the EVOH, 43 parts by weight of water and 2 parts by weight of methanol (water present in about 30% by weight (W1) ; calculated by Examiner) (¶84) . The resulting hydrous EVOH composition was continuously fed into a twin-screw extruder, and melt-kneaded (¶85) at a temperature of from 80° C to 250° C (¶69) . The twin - screw extruder had a r otation speed of 90 rpm , a cylinder temperature of 95 ° C , and a die temperature of 95 ° C (extruded from the extruder temperature) (¶89-91) . The extruder additionally has a dewatering slit (back slit) in order to release the water and/or water vapor (¶72). Strands of the EVOH extruded from the extruder were cooled in a water bath, and then cut into EVOH pellets (¶93) . The pellets had a water content of 18 wt % (W2) (¶93) . The ratio of the water content W2 to the water content W1 is 0.6 (calculated by Examiner; 18/30=0.6). The claimed temperature range of the extruder for melt-kneading (80° C to 130° C) is not taught with sufficient specificity for an anticipation rejection as the reference teaches a range of 80° C to 250° C (¶69) . However, i n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a temperature of from 80° C to 130° C in the extruder for melt-kneading, and would have been motivated to do so because Fujimura et al. teaches that this claimed range is suitable for use in the disclosed invention. Regarding claim 3 , Fujimura et al. does not explicitly teach that the extruder does not have a liquid outlet downstream from an inlet of the water-containing ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer. However, Fujimura et al. does teach that water or water vapor is released from at least one position of the extruder and an arrangement for the release is not particularly limited (¶72). There are three choices for where the water outlet can be located – upstream from the EVOH inlet, downstream from the EVOH inlet, or at the same position as the EVOH inlet. It would not make sense to have the outlet be at the same position as the inlet so therefore, there are two possible positions for the water outlet. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, absent unexpected results, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the two possible positions and choose the one which optimized the process, and would have been motivated to do so by a reasonable expectation of success in that one of the two positions would work best. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3303 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1197 . 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. /ANGELA C SCOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593762
PLANT FIBER BIOCOMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12552925
INJECTION MOLDED ARTICLE AND SHOE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545053
TIRES FOR VEHICLE WHEELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540251
Thermoplastic polymer powder for 3D printing with improved recyclability
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12534408
IMPROVEMENT OF THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF WATERPROOFED GYPSUM BOARDS WITH POLYDIMETHYLSILOXANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
63%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+20.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 875 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