Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/981,756

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ANTIMICROBIAL ARTICLES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, VU ANH
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Halomine Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1247 granted / 1498 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1529
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1498 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/10/2025, are based on a Declaration by Marc Hein. However, said Declaration is not on file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Unless stated otherwise, the basis for the following rejections can be found in the last Office action. Claims 393-395, 398, 401-407 and 411-412 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/096694 A1 to Worley et al. for the reasons set forth in the Office action dated 6/10/2025. To reiterate, Worley et al. discloses a similar biocidal copolymer but fails to disclose its Mn. However, considering that the copolymer is incorporated into a biocidal coating composition that may be applied to a variety of surfaces using different coating techniques such as soaking, spraying and spreading (p. 20), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was filed, to adjust the Mn of the copolymer to be suitable for a selected coating method and/or coating thickness. That is to say that the properties of the coating composition, such as viscosity and the concentration of the copolymer, depend on the MW of the copolymer, wherein said MW can be readily controlled by a POSITA. “In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.)” See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Claims 393-395, 398, 401-407 and 411-412 are unpatentable for being obvious. Claims 399-340 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/096694 A1 to Worley et al. in view of WO 2019/246123 A1 to Ma et al. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 408-410 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Worley et al., which represents the closest prior art of record, fails to disclose or suggest a comonomer that is a zwitterion. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that the claimed polymer is prepared by RAFT, which tends to afford a low MW, whereas the prior art polymer is prepared by a conventional free radical polymerization, which gives a higher MW. It is noted, however, that the pending claims are not directed to a method of polymerization but a polymer as a product. Thus, the method of making is patentably immaterial. Second, a free radical polymerization does not always produce high-MW polymers. A POSITA knows well that the MW can be controlled by many ways: the reaction time, the reaction temperature, the amount of the initiator, the presence or absence of a chain-transfer agent, etc. Third, a POSITA is expected to know that a selected coating method and/or a desirable coating thickness require a certain range of viscosity which is directly related to the MW and the concentration of the polymer in the coating composition. For example, if lowering the concentration of a high-MW polymer causes the coating to be less effective (due to a low dose of the active material), a reduced MW (and hence an increased concentration) would be more favorable. A reduced MW is also preferred if the coating method requires a low viscosity. These are routine optimizations. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). Lastly, there is no evidence in the application that a MW less than 25 KDa produces a superior result. 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 VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM. 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 JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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. /VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604662
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600885
COMPOSITION INCLUDING MONOMER WITH A CARBOXYLIC ACID GROUP, MONOMER WITH A HYDROXYL GROUP, AN ALKYL MONOMER, AND CROSSLINKER AND RELATED ARTICLE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598907
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598859
LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583843
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL LAYER OF ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1498 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