Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/965,126

BIOFILM INHIBITION SYSTEM BASED ON UV-LEDS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 13, 2022
Examiner
GEISBERT, WILLIAM ADDISON
Art Unit
1779
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
U.S. Department of Energy
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
-1%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 15 resolved
-45.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -21% lift
Without
With
+-21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
56
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 15 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed October 10th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims and specification have overcome each and every objection, 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed September 8th, 2025. Therefore, the objections and rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 112. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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, this claim recites that the biofilm inhibition system (BIS) comprises a sensor chamber, while further reciting that “no part of the BIS is in contact with any part of the sensor.” These limitations, when read together under the broadest reasonable interpretation, render the scope of the claim unclear and internally inconsistent. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a sensor chamber to be a structure that houses, supports, or directly interfaces with a sensor or sensing elements. If the BIS comprises the sensor chamber, then at least a portion of the BIS would ordinarily be expected to be in contact with the sensor. However, claim 1 simultaneously requires these two conditions to coexist without any definition or explanation that would reconcile these requirements. Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1. Claims 13-20 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 13, this claim is directed to a method of inhibiting development of a biofilm in a sensor comprising a sensor chamber with an interior volume and an interior surface comprising a sensing surface characterized by a normal direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis characterizing the sensor chamber, the interior surface being exposed to direct contact with a fluid during sensor operation. However, there is no longer a step or indication in the claim of how the method of inhibiting development of a biofilm is accomplished. Claims 14-20 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 13. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-12 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 10 is directed to a biofilm inhibition system (BIS) for a sensor comprising a sensor chamber and a fluid treatment chamber which are separate and distinct from each other, wherein treated fluid flows from an output port of the treatment chamber through a pipe to enter the sensor chamber, and no part of the sensor chamber is included within the fluid treatment chamber. The prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest this claimed configuration. In particular, none of the cited references, nor any discovered after further searching disclose or suggest a separate fluid treatment chamber upstream of the sensor chamber, nor do they teach the recited flow of treated fluid through a pipe from the treatment chamber into a physically distinct sensor chamber. Additionally, the cited references do not disclose or suggest a configuration in which no part of the sensor chamber is included within the fluid treatment chamber, as now required by claim 10. The prior art does not provide a teaching or suggestion that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cited systems to arrive at the claimed arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 11 and 12 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT. 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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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. /W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779 /Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 17, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

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
20%
Grant Probability
-1%
With Interview (-21.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 15 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