Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/855,951

Antimicrobial Coatings

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 01, 2022
Examiner
MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Agienic Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
388 granted / 734 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
80 currently pending
Career history
814
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 734 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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 1-3, 5, 7, 21-22 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014519504 (hereinafter referred to as ‘504). Regarding claim 1, ‘504 teaches a hydrophobic fabric comprises [pp. 26, last para. ] coated with an aqueous coating formulation [0024] comprising at least one polymer (such as the functionalizing agent which is a polymer) [0010 and 0061] and particles of at least one low water solubility antimicrobial material [0014, 0030 and Examples]. The average particle size of the particles of at least one low water solubility antimicrobial material is within the claimed range [0025 and Examples]. The aqueous coating formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon removal of the water [curing, 0027]. Regarding claim 2, the aqueous coating formulation additionally contains at least one of another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic and antiviral agent [0003 and 0046]. Regarding claim 3, the fabric comprises at least one of a polyester and a polyolefin [0026]. Regarding claim 5, the low water solubility antimicrobial material comprises surface functionalized particles of cuprous iodide [Example 56]. Regarding claim 7, the low water solubility antimicrobial material in the insoluble coating is present in the claimed concentration by weight of the insoluble coating [0023]. Regarding claims 21-22, ‘504 teaches the aqueous coating formulation comprises water soluble polymer (PVP) [0010 and Examples] and water insoluble polymer (Esacote polyurethane) [Example 56]. Regarding claim 28-29, ‘504 teaches a hydrophobic fabric coated with an aqueous coating formulation comprising at least one polymer and at least one low water solubility antimicrobial material wherein the aqueous coating formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon removal of water from the aqueous coating formulation coated on the hydrophobic fabric [0010, 0024-0027, 0061 and Examples]. The antimicrobial material is a copper compound [Examples]. 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. Claims 4 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014519504 (hereinafter referred to as ‘504). Regarding claim 4, ‘504 teaches fabrics, but is silent regarding the claimed specific type of fabric. However, given the limited number of types of fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any type of fabric including nonwovens, which are well known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 9, ‘540 are silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of ‘540 with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 8, 10-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014519504 (hereinafter referred to as ‘504) in view of Fujimori et al. (JP 2010/168578). Regarding claim 8, ‘504 is silent regarding the claimed personal protective item. However, Fujimori et al. teaches a personal protective item including a masks and medical equipment in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the masks and medical equipment of Fujimori et al. in ‘504 in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment and arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 10, ‘504 teaches a product comprising a polyolefin fabric [0026] coated with an aqueous antimicrobial formulation [0024] comprising particles of a low water solubility copper compound [0014, 0030 and Examples] and at least one water insoluble polymer wherein the polyolefin fabric is hydrophobic and the aqueous antimicrobial formulation forms a water insoluble coating [0027] on the hydrophobic polyolefin fabric upon removal of water. ‘504 is silent regarding the claimed personal protective item. However, Fujimori et al. teaches a personal protective item including a masks and medical equipment in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the masks and medical equipment of Fujimori et al. in ‘504 in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment and arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 11 and 23, the low water solubility antimicrobial material comprises surface functionalized particles of cuprous iodide [Example 56]. Regarding claim 12, the aqueous coating formulation additionally contains at least one of another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic and antiviral agent [0003 and 0046]. Regarding claim 13, the low water solubility antimicrobial material in the insoluble coating is present in the claimed concentration by weight of the insoluble coating [0023]. Regarding claim 14, ‘540 are silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of ‘540 with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014519504 (hereinafter referred to as ‘504) in view of Choi et al (KR 20060111181). Regarding claim 24, ‘504 teaches a hydrophobic fabric coated with an aqueous formulation comprising particles of an antimicrobial material having a water solubility in the claimed range [Example 56 teaches a water insoluble composition so the water solubility is less than 100 mg/L] wherein the aqueous formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon drying. ‘504 teaches fabrics, but is silent regarding the claimed specific type of fabric. However, given the limited number of types of fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any type of fabric including nonwovens, which are well known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention. ‘540 teaches surfactants, but are silent regarding the surfactant being a Gemini type surfactant. However, Choi et al. teach a Gemini type surfactant in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gemini type surfactant of Choi et al. in ‘540 in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactants and arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 25, the low water solubility antimicrobial material comprises surface functionalized particles of cuprous iodide [Example 56]. Regarding claim 26, the aqueous coating formulation additionally contains at least one of another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic and antiviral agent [0003 and 0046]. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014519504 (hereinafter referred to as ‘504) in view of Choi et al (KR 20060111181) in view of Fujimori et al. (JP 2010/168578). Regarding claim 27, ‘504 teaches a product, but is the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the product. However, Fujimori et al. teaches a product including a masks and medical equipment in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the masks and medical equipment of Fujimori et al. in the previous combination in order to make antiviral masks and medical equipment and arrive at the claimed invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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. /Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595597
FLEXIBLE, HIGH TEMPERATURE RESISTANT, FLUID RESISTANT, ABRASION RESISTANT, MULTILAYERED WRAPPABLE TEXTILE SLEEVE AND METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583782
OPTICAL FIBER PREFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584248
POLYAMIDE 46 MULTIFILAMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584276
ARTIFICIAL TURF STRUCTURE HAVING IMPROVED BUFFERING PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577706
Lyocell fibers and methods of producing the same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+31.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 734 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