Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/152,758

PROCESS FOR TREATMENT OF AN INITIAL POLYPROPYLENE-CONTAINING MATERIAL TO PRODUCE A POLYPROPYLENE COMPOSITION FOR INJECTION MOLDING

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Priority
Feb 14, 2023 — EU 23315029.1 +1 more
Examiner
TENTONI, LEO B
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Institut National Des Sciences Appliquées De Lyon (Insa Lyon)
OA Round
3 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
1165 granted / 1423 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1450
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1423 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 September 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application no. 19/153,848 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record (37 CFR 1.32(a) and 1.32(b)). Applicant may file a power of attorney granting power of attorney to the attorney or agent signing the terminal disclaimer, along with another copy of the terminal disclaimer that is signed by the applicant. Double Patenting The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, 19 and 20 of co-pending Application No. 19/153,848 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons of record. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 24 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The terminal disclaimer submitted on 24 September 2026 is not accepted (see above). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F. 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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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. LEO B. TENTONI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Jul 20, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Sep 24, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768081
METHOD FOR PRODUCING REGENERATED CELLULOSIC FIBERS
2y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766784
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12769219
IMPRINT APPARATUS, IMPRINT METHOD, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 3m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766793
HEAT DISSIPATION CONTROL IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 2m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12759212
METHOD FOR PREPARING PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE INTEGRATED WITH VEHICLE BODY
1y 10m to grant Granted Oct 13, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 9m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1423 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