Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/276,753

HYDROGENATED POLYMER COMPOSITION CONTAINING HYDROGENATED CONJUGATED DIENE MODIFIED POLYMER HAVING BORON-CONTAINING FUNCTIONAL GROUP AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Examiner
HEINCER, LIAM J
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kuraray Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
783 granted / 1412 resolved
-9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
89 currently pending
Career history
1501
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1412 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US Pat. 5,571,871). Considering Claim 1: Ikeda et al. teaches a process of preparing a hydrogenated polymer composition comprising a hydrogenated conjugated diene polymer modified with a boron containing functional group (26:35-57), comprising the steps of anionically polymerizing isoprene/a conjugated diene in the presence of butyl lithium/a reactive metal compound to produce a diene polymer with a reactive terminal group (26:35-57), reacting the reactive terminal polymer with a boron ester (26:35-57) that is preferably tripropylborate or tributylborate (6:12-21) to prepare a terminal modified diene polymer with boron containing terminal groups; and hydrogenating the conjugated diene polymer to react the double bonds present in the polymer (26:35-57). The original specification of the instant application teaches propyl and butyl groups as having the claimed Taft steric parameter in Formula (I) (¶0035). Considering Claim 2: Ikeda et al. teaches mixing the borate with water/a polar compound prior to adding to the polymer (26:35-57). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US Pat. 5,571,871). Considering Claims 3-5: Ikeda et al. teaches a polymer composition comprising a hydrogenated conjugated diene polymer modified with a boronic acid group (26:35-57). Ikeda et al. teaches a polymer modified with groups of the formula PNG media_image1.png 54 56 media_image1.png Greyscale , PNG media_image2.png 58 70 media_image2.png Greyscale , or PNG media_image3.png 62 82 media_image3.png Greyscale , where X and Y are hydrogen or an aliphatic hydrocarbon group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, R1-R3 are hydrogen or an aliphatic hydrocarbon group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and M is a alkali or alkali earth metal (3:5-52). Ikeda et al. teaches a second polymer having the structure PNG media_image4.png 48 72 media_image4.png Greyscale , PNG media_image5.png 52 68 media_image5.png Greyscale , or PNG media_image6.png 58 90 media_image6.png Greyscale , where Z is hydrogen or an aliphatic hydrocarbon group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, X is hydrogen or an aliphatic hydrocarbon group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, R1-R3 are hydrogen or an aliphatic hydrocarbon group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and M is a alkali or alkali earth metal (4:1-38). The polymers are blended with ethylene vinyl alcohol (1:45-50). Ikeda et al. does not teach using a blend of the two polymers in the composition. However, "[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). The two boron modified polymers would have different polarity due to the alkyl group of the second polymer, which does not hydrolyze to a boric acid group. As such, the amount of each polymer in the blend would be a result effective variable controlling the polarity, and thus the compatibility with the ethylene vinyl alcohol, of the blend. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a blend of the boron modified polymers of Ikeda et al., and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the relative amounts through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Ikeda et al. suggests, to provide compatibility with the ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer and good transparency to the composition with ethylene vinyl alcohol (1:40-55). Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 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. /LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600849
Super Absorbent Polymer Film and Preparation Method Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600667
GLASS SHEET FOR CHEMICAL STRENGTHENING, MANUFACTURING METHOD OF STRENGTHENED GLASS SHEET, AND GLASS SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595320
METHOD OF CONTROLLING ALPHA-OLEFIN CONDENSATION IN ABSORPTION MEDIA DURING POLYOLEFIN PRODUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589377
ENCAPSULATED COMPOSITION COMPRISING CORE-SHELL MICROCAPSULES AND PROCESS FOR ITS PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590114
METHOD OF MAKING A BINDER COMPOSITION, AND BINDER COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
56%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+25.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1412 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