Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/044,269

FLOCCULANT BASED DISINFECTION PROCESS FOR PATHOGENIC MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Priority
Sep 08, 2020 — IN 202011039050 +1 more
Examiner
DAVIS, BRIAN J
Art Unit
1614
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
1348 granted / 1589 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1625
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1589 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Specification The objection to the specification, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment deletes the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. 112(a) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claims 17-31 under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. With respect to claims 19 and 21, the amendment cancels the claims. With respect to the remaining claims, the amendment narrows the scope of the claimed subject matter such that the claim set is now enabled. 112(b) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment clarifies the claim as appropriate. The rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment clarifies the claim as appropriate. The rejection of claim 26 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment clarifies the claim as appropriate. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment clarifies the claim as appropriate. The rejection of claims 18-23, 25 and 27 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action (indefinite from indefinite), is withdrawn. The objection is moot. (The amendment cancels claims 19 and 21.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), NEW 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 17 and 18 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. In independent claim 17, for instance, it is unclear why, in the 5th text line of the claim, the term “poly amino acid” appears. After inventor’s latest amendment, the claim has been limited to a specific poly amino acid: poly glutamic acid (note text line 2 of the claim). Analysis of dependent claim 18 is similar. The examiner respectfully suggests, or order to avoid any possible ambiguity with respect to the metes and bounds of the claims, that a consistent terminology (i.e. poly glutamic acid, not simply “poly amino acid”) be maintained both within an individual claim, as well as throughout the entire claim set. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: what exactly constitutes “…using [emphasis added] the flocculant base disinfectant kit…to treat solid medical waste.” Clarification is in order. Claims 20, 22-25 and 27 are also 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. The claims all depend, or ultimately depend, upon an indefinite base claim yet do not relieve the indefiniteness. Dependent claims 20, 22-25 and 27 are also, therefore, indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d), MAINTAINED The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, is maintained essentially for reasons of record. Inventor’s amendment has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. The claim still fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, claim 28. Independent claim 28, the claim from which claim 31 immediately depends, teaches a process for the preparation of the instant flocculant based disinfectant composition. Dependent claim 31 then teaches a method of utilizing this composition so prepared in a process for disinfecting a sample. That is, the limitations of claim 31, all having to do with the utilization of a composition already fully prepared, do not further limit the method of its preparation as taught in claim 28. Indeed, logically, how could they? Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 28-30 are allowed essentially for reasons of record (5/12/2026). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 8/30/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
May 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 28, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747253
KRAS G12D INHIBITORS
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746193
COSMETIC COMPOSITION
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746293
DNA Vector Delivery Using Lipid Nanoparticles
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746263
COMPOSITION FOR TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES COMPRISING LACTOBACILLUS SAKEI OR EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES DERIVED THEREFROM AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746278
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR WOUND HEALING
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (-4.0%)
1y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1589 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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