Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/549,717

POLYPROPYLENE COMPOSITION FOR CABLE INSULATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
USELDING, JOHN E
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BOREALIS AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
671 granted / 1262 resolved
-11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1331
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1262 resolved cases

Office Action

§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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claims 1-15 are 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 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The melt flow rate is indefinite since the claims do not specify the temperature or load for testing the melt flow rate. Claim 11 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. The limitation “being subjected to vis-breaking” is indefinite because it is an active method step in a composition claim. It is indefinite whether it is a past action performed on the composition, or whether it is an intended use of the composition. Con tact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272- 1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600669
SELF-HEALING POLYMER-MODIFIED CEMENTS FOR AMBIENT TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600856
RESIN COMPOSITION, FORMED ARTICLE, AND, FORMED ARTICLE WITH HARD COAT LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600809
ETHYLENE-VINYL ALCOHOL COPOLYMER COMPOSITION, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590214
INK-JET INK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583997
RESIN MOLDED BODY AND RESIN MOLDED BODY PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
53%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+17.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1262 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