Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,768

FLUORIDE CATALYZED POLYSILOXANE DEPOLYMERIZATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
BOYKIN, TERRESSA M
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Bowling Green State University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1662 granted / 1855 resolved
+24.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1890
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1855 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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(s)1, 2-6, 8-10, 13,19-21, 23-29, 31, 36, 38, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 9309488B2 see col. 2 lines 20-30, col. 3 lines 1-25, col. 8 and Examples 1-5. Claim 1 is directed to a method of depolymerizing a siloxane polymer, the method comprising: immersing the siloxane polymer in a solvent; incorporating a source of fluoride into the solvent; allowing a reaction between the fluoride and the siloxane polymer to cause rearrangement of the siloxane polymer into a cyclic monomer; and quenching the reaction to prevent repolymerization of the cyclic monomer. USP 9309488B2 discloses a process for depolymerizing siloxane materials using tetraallyl ammonium fluoride in a solvent system may include inorganic salts. The reference also discloses that silicone polymers are dissolved and depolymerized under these conditions. In the presence of fluoride, linear siloxane polymers are known to equilibrate to cyclic siloxane monomers. . See col. 4-5 and Examples 1-5. See col. 2 lines 20-30, col. 3 lines 1-25, col. 8 and Examples 1-5. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form cyclic siloxane monomers in view of the teachings of USP 9309488B2 because such cyclic species are established equilibration products of linear siloxanes in the presence of fluoride. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to quench the reaction to prevent continued equilibration or repolymerization because removal of active fluoride species is required to stop further reaction and quenching of reactive siloxane intermediates was well known in siloxane processes. Claim 2 is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein the source of fluoride comprises an ionic liquid. Note USP 9309488B2 discloses tetraalkylammonium fluorides, including tetramethyl, tetraethyl and tetrabutylammonium fluoride which are commonly supplied as ionic liquids. See col. 3 lines 1-10 and col. 8 With regard to claim 3, note USP 9309488B2 discloses tetraalkylammonium fluorides, including tetramethyl, tetraethyl and tetrabutylammonium fluoride. See col. 2 line 26; col. 3 lines 1-10 and col. 8. With regard to claim 4, note USP 9309488B2 col. 4 lines 60-65 and col. 5 lines 1-10. With regard to claim 5, note USP 9309488B2 see col. 2 line 26. With regard to claim 6, note USP 9309488B2 see col. 2 line 26, col. 3 lines 22-25. With regard to claim 8, note USP 9309488B2 see col. 2 line 26, col. 3 lines 22-25. With regard to claim 9, note USP 9309488B2 col. 4 lines 26-29. Moreover, it is well known in organosilicon processes that aqueous workup removes inorganic salts and deactivates ionic species. With regard to claim 10, note USP 9309488B2 col. 4 lines 26-29. Moreover, it is well known in organosilicon processes that aqueous workup removes inorganic salts and deactivates ionic species. With regard to claim 13, note USP 9309488B2 discloses treatment at room temperature and discloses usable temperatures between 20C and 150C. see Examples 1-5; col. 4 lines 55-60; and col. 5 lines 15-25. With regard to claim 19, note USP 9309488B2 discloses treatment at room temperature and discloses usable temperatures between 20C and 150C. see Examples 1-5; col. 4 lines 55-60; and col. 5 lines 15-25. With regard to claim 20, note USP 9309488B2 mixing the fluoride, inorganic salt and solvent to form the dissolver composition. See col. 4. With regard to claim 21, note USP 9309488B2 mixing the fluoride, inorganic salt and solvent to form the dissolver composition. See col. 4. With regard to claim 23, note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-2. With regard to claim 24, note USP 9309488B2 cols. 1-2. note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-2. With regard to claim 25, note USP 9309488B2 note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-4. With regard to claim 26, note USP 9309488B2 note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-4. With regard to claim 27, note USP 9309488B2 note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-4. With regard to claim 28, note USP 9309488B2 note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-4. With regard to claim 29, note USP 9309488B2 note USP 9309488B2 broadly discloses the removal and depolymerization of polysiloxane materials. See cols. 1-5 and Examples. With regard to claim 31, note USP 9309488B2 cyclic siloxanes such as D4 and D5 are well known intermediates used to prepare linear polysiloxanes via a ring-opening polymerization. It would have been to repolymerize the cyclic monomer because the reaction is reversible and widely used for silicone processing. With regard to claim 36, note USP 9309488B2 discloses specific concentration of tetraalkylammonium fluoride in solvent compositions. See Examples 1-5. With regard to claim 38, note USP 9309488B2 discloses the removal of silicone residues from substates by dissolving and depolymerizing silicone materials. See cols. 1-2 and cols. 4-5. With regard to claim 39, note USP 9309488B2 discloses the removal of silicone residues from substates by dissolving and depolymerizing silicone materials. See cols. 1-2 and col. 4-5. In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable. Information Disclosure Statement Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office. Improper Claim Dependency Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30. 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 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. /Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595349
ANTIFERROMAGNETIC STRAIN RECOVERY INDUCED PHOTON PULSE INITIATING BOND CLEAVAGE IN CROSS-LINKED RUBBER STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595351
CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF MATERIALS COMPRISING WASTE AUTOMOTIVE CARPET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595350
COMPOSITION OF PLASTIC MATERIAL AND PROCESS FOR TREATING PLASTIC MATERIALS FOR FORMING SAID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595352
PROCESS FOR RECYCLING POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE USING SELECTED TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR OLIGOMER PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577157
PROCESSING PETROLEUM-DERIVED MATERIALS
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
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1855 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