Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/369,275

COMPOSITION CONTAINING GLYCOLIPIDS AND PRESERVATIVES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 07, 2021
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Evonik Operations GMBH
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

33%
Career Allow Rate
204 granted / 617 resolved
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
83 pending
700
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Note: The amendment of November 25th 2025 has been considered. Claim 41 has been amended. Claims 1-40, 44, 46, 47 and 60 are cancelled. Claims 41-43, 45, 48-59 and 61-64 are pending and examined in the current application. Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 41-43, 45, 48-59 and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al. (US PatPub. 2014/0178444 A1) in view of Schilling et al. (USPatPub 2014/0296168A1). Regarding claims 41 and 49-52 and 61: Stadler discloses an anti-bacterial preservative composition with a reduced bitter taste to be used in food products, wherein the preservative composition comprises 5-100wt% glycolipids (see Stadler abstract; paragraphs [0033]-[0037], [0044], [0094] and [0569]) and between 0.01-1wt% preservative, preferably sorbic acid and benzoic acid and/or salts thereof (see Stadler paragraphs [0155]-[0156], [0161], [0227]) and the pH of the composition is less than 7.6 (see Stadler paragraph [0162]). Since the glycolipid and preservative contents and the pH recited in claims 41 and 52 overlap or lie inside the glycolipid and preservative contents and pH in Stadler, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05). As to the rhamnolipid compositions and ratios recited in claims 41, 44-48 and 56-59: Stadler discloses the glycolipids may comprise rhamnolipids (see Stadler abstract; paragraphs [0033]-[0037], [0044], [0094] and [0569]), but fails to disclose the relative contents of the specific rhamnolipids (i.e., mono-rhamnolipids and di-rhamnolipids); However, Schilling discloses that mixtures of di-rhamnolipids and mono-rhamnolipids with di-rhamnolipids content of 51wt% to 95wt%, and mono-rhamnolipids content of 0.5wt% and 9wt%, and with the di-rhamnolipids to mono-rhamnolipids ratio of greater than 91:9, provide superior anti-microbial protection (see Schilling abstract; paragraphs [0039]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Stadler and to have used a mixture of 51wt% to 95wt% di-rhamnolipids and 0.5wt% and 9wt% mono-rhamnolipids, with the di-rhamnolipids to mono-rhamnolipids ratio of greater than 91:9, in order to attain a superior anti-microbial protection, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. Given the fact independent claim 41 does not recite rhamnolipids, the disclosure in Stadler encompasses the mono rhamnolipids and di-rhamnolipids contents and ratios recited in claims 44-48 and 56-59. Regarding claim 42, 54 and 55: Stadler discloses the preservative composition comprises 5-100wt% glycolipids (see Stadler abstract; paragraphs [0044] and [0094]) and between 0.01-1wt% preservative (see Stadler paragraphs [0155]-[0156], [0161], [0227]). Since the glycolipid to preservatives ratio recited in claims 42, 54 and 55 overlaps the glycolipid to preservatives in Stadler, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05). Regarding claim 43: Stadler discloses the preservative composition comprises preservatives such as, isothiazolinones, phenoxyethanol, benzyl alcohol, parabens, antimicrobial peptides, terpenes, antimicrobial fatty acids, formaldehyde releasers and alcohols (see Stadler paragraph [0177]). Regarding claim 53: Stadler discloses the preservative composition comprises 5-100wt% glycolipids, that may be rhamnolipids (see Stadler abstract; paragraphs [0033]-[0037], [0044], [0094] and [0569]) and between 0.01-1wt% preservative, such as sorbic acid, benzoic acid and salts thereof (see Stadler paragraphs [0155]-[0156], [0161], [0227]) and the pH of the composition is less than 7.6 (see Stadler paragraph [0162]). Since the rhamnolipid and preservative contents and the pH recited in claim 53 overlap or lie inside the rhamnolipid and preservative contents and pH in Stadler, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on November 25th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because the claimed combination is one of many other possible combination disclosed in the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Given the fact the claimed species is clearly named, the claim is met, no matter how many other possible species are named (see MPEP §2131.02(II)) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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. /ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 16, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 05, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 05, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 05, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12588688
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN INGREDIENT COMPRISING A COMBINATION OF AT LEAST THREE MILK PROTEINS AND USE OF THE INGREDIENT OBTAINED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582135
DHA Enriched Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577593
DHA ENRICHED POLYUNSATURATED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564198
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SN-2 PALMITIC TRIACYLGLYCEROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557833
Caking Resistant Salt Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+23.9%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 617 resolved cases by this examiner