Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/754,657

ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITION FOR ANIMAL FEED

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2022
Examiner
WORSHAM, JESSICA N
Art Unit
1615
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Taminco BV
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
407 granted / 726 resolved
-3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+57.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
780
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 726 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 . Detailed Action Status of Application 1. Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 26 December 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are currently pending. Claims 5, 13, 18, 21, and 24 are cancelled. Claims 20 and 22-23 were previously withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, and 19 are examined on the merits within. Withdrawn Rejections 2. Applicants’ arguments, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejections of claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-17, and 19 have been withdrawn. Modified Rejections Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 3. 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. 4. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, and 19 is/are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (WO2011/017367) in view of Coleman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0266852). Regarding instant claims 1-4, 7, and 10, Richardson et al. teach a composition that can comprise 1 to 100% organic acids. Of the organic acid compound, 2 to 20% is pelargonic acid and the remaining 98 to 80% is acetic acid or propionic acid. The composition may contain 0 to 20% terpenes, preferably 0.5 to 10%. See page 7. Regarding instant claims 8-9, preferred terpenes are allyl disulfide, thymol, citral, eugenol, carvacrol, and carvone, or mixtures thereof. See page 6. Regarding instant claims 11-12 and 14-15, the composition may contain 0 to 99% water. See page 7. Regarding instant claims 16-17 and 19, the composition comprises 0 to 20% surfactant, preferably 0.5 to 5%. See page 7. Richardson et al. do not teach caprylic or capric acid as the fatty acid. Coleman teaches fungicide compositions including one or more fatty acids and one or more organic acids different from the fatty acid. The organic acid functions as a potent synergist for the fatty acid as a fungicide. See abstract. Fatty acids include caprylic acid, capric acid, and pelargonic acid. See paragraph [0018]. Organic acids include trichloroacetic and oxalacetic acid. See paragraph [0021]. The composition can additionally comprise emulsifiers, adjuvants, surfactants, and diluents. See abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute one fatty acid for another to yield predictable results because Coleman teaches the functional equivalency of caprylic acid, capric acid, and pelargonic acid in formulations comprising acetic acids. Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments filed 26 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 5. Applicant argued, “Specific compositions of Coleman comprise high proportions of the medium chain fatty acid that is at least 70 wt% or less than 1 wt%. Thus one does not provide motivation to substitute pelargonic acid with caprylic acid at 5-25 wt%.” In response to applicants’ argument, Coleman teaches caprylic acid and capric acid as fatty acid compounds used in the invention. It further states that “in preferred embodiments, a concentrated formulation of the agricultural composition comprises between about 1% v/v and about 99% v/v of a fatty acid; more preferably, between about 50 and about 90% v/v based upon the total volume of the concentrated formulation.” See paragraph [0019]. Example 1 shows that even as little as 0.75% caprylic acid demonstrated significant reduction in the fungal growth on soybean foliage. Although Coleman’s preferred embodiment is higher values, the prior art teaches values of 1 to 99% which reads on the claimed 5-25%, while also showing effectiveness at lower values. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute one fatty acid for another to yield predictable results because Coleman teaches the functional equivalency of caprylic acid, capric acid, and pelargonic acid in formulations comprising acetic acids. Thus this rejection is maintained. Conclusion 6. 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. Conclusion 7. No claims are allowed. 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5). 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, Robert Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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. /JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599138
CELLULOSIC FIBERS COMPRISING INTERNALLY DISPERSED CUPROUS OXIDE NANOPARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599571
METHOD FOR PREPARING POLYDOPAMINE NANOMOTOR USING UREASE, AND USE OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599626
METHOD OF OBTAINING A PHARMACEUTICAL AGENT USED FOR INHIBITING THE PROLIFERATION OF TUMOR CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594361
HERNIA REPAIR, BREAST RECONSTRUCTION AND SLING DEVICES CONTAINING POLY(BUTYLENE SUCCINATE) AND COPOLYMERS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570797
AN ACID FUNCTIONAL COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 726 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