Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/258,456

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENT COMPOSITION AND MANUFACTURING METHOD AND PRODUCT THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
ALAWADI, SARAH
Art Unit
1619
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Dong Chul Ihn
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
247 granted / 661 resolved
-22.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
713
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 661 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 . Claim Status Claims 1-10 are pending and under current examination. Specification - Abstract Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case the phrase “this disclosure relates to” is considered implied phraseology. Specification - Drawings The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. In the instant case, Figure 4 recites an embedded hyperlink. Appropriate correction is required. Claim objections Claim 5-6 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: For readability of the claims, Claims 5-6 should recite the method of manufacturing the antimicrobial agent according to claim, instead of an antimicrobial agent since claims 5-6 refer back to the antimicrobial agent of claims 3 and 4. For readability of the claims, Claims 9-10 should recite the method of manufacturing the antimicrobial agent according to claim, instead of an antimicrobial agent since claims 9-10 refer back to the antimicrobial agent of claims 7 and 8. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-10 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. Claim 1 recites An antimicrobial agent composition comprising an undiluted mixture solution formed by mixing: 1 to 10 weight % of a mixture comprising 50 to 60 weight % of purified water and chloride in which sodium chloride and calcium chloride which are at a 1:1 ratio, 50 weight % : 50 weight %, are contained; 1 to 2 weight % of a mixture comprising pueraria lobata root extract and bellflower root extract which are selected from among natural extracts and are at a 1:1 ratio, 50 weight % : 50 weight %; 5 to 10 weight % of a mixture comprising carbonate based material in which sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate which are at a 1:1 ratio, 50 weight % : 50 weight %, are contained; 10 to 15 weight % of a mixture comprising lactic acid and acetic acid among organic acids and their related salts, which are at a 1:1 ratio, 50 weight % : 50 weight %; and 5 to 10 weight % of chloric acid based compound of inorganic acid. It is unclear if claim 1 requires calcium and sodium chloride as “the chloride” or if chloride is indicating the presence of an alternative chloride to sodium and calcium chloride. It is also unclear if “which are selected from among natural extracts” requires the Pueraria lobata and bellflower in the alternative to natural extracts or if these are the natural extracts. Claim 1 recites “carbonate based material” and in which sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate are at a 1:1 ratio, 50 weight:50 weight% are contained. It is unclear if the carbonate based material is sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate or if carbonate based is meant to include alternative materials. Furthermore, the term “based” for carbonate renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires carbonate or not. The metes and bounds as to which compounds are “based” and thus can be included as a carbonate based compound are unclear and the specification does not define the phrase. Thus, it is unclear how the term “based” modifies the carbonate. Claim 1 recites the phrase “among organic acids and their related salts”. Here, it is unclear if lactic acid and acetic acid is required by the claim or if the claim requires organic acid and their related salts (genus) in the alternative. In addition, the phrase “related salts” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear what compounds are meant to be encompassed by related salts to organic acids. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the organic acids and their salts as being lactic acid and acetic acid. Claim 1 recites “chloric acid based compound”. Here, the phrase “based” renders it is unclear if chloric acid is even required by the claim. The metes and bounds as to which compounds are “based” and thus can be included as a chlorite based compound are unclear and the specification does not define the phrase. The specification does not clearly define what chloric acid based compounds are only recites “such as” for some examples. Thus it is unclear how the term “based” modifies the chloric acid. Therefore, it is unclear which compounds fall within the scope of chloric acid based compounds required by claim 1. Claim 7 recites a method of manufacturing an antimicrobial agent, the method comprising a first step of selecting the antimicrobial agent of claim 2 and a second step of converting the first step to a liquid by applying heat. However, claim 2 is already a liquid product with the addition of dilution of the undiluted mixture with 50 to 10kg of purified water. Therefore, it is unclear how the second step converts the composition into a liquid product because the composition of claim 2 is already a liquid product that has been diluted. Claim 8 recites a method of manufacturing an antimicrobial agent, the method comprising a first step of selecting the antimicrobial agent of claim 2 and a second step of converting the first step to a liquid by applying heat. However, claim 2 is already a liquate product with the addition of dilution of the undiluted mixture with 50 to 10kg of purified water. Therefore, it is unclear how the second step converts the composition into a liquid product because the composition of claim 2 is already a liquid product that has been diluted. Furthermore, claim 2 has already been diluted, however claim 8 recites a third step of diluting 1kg liquefied composite material of the second step with 50-100kg of purified water rendering the scope of the methods unclear. Because claim 1 is indefinite, all claims which require the limitations of claim 1 are indefinite. Suggested Claim Amendment for Claim 1 An antimicrobial agent composition comprising an undiluted mixture solution formed by mixing: 1 to 10 weight % of a mixture comprising 50 to 60 weight % of purified water, and containing 50 weight % sodium chloride : 50 weight % calcium chloride 1 to 2 weight % of a mixture comprising pueraria lobata root extract and bellflower root extract pueraria lobata root extract : 50 weight % bellflower root extract; 5 to 10 weight % of a mixture comprising containing, 50 weight % sodium carbonate: 50 weight % sodium bicarbonate 10 to 15 weight % of a mixture comprising lactic acid and acetic acid containing 50 weight % lactic acid : 50 weight % acetic acid; and 5 to 10 weight % of an inorganic acid selected from the group consisting of HClO, HClO2, and HClO3. Conclusion Claims 1-10 are rejected. Status of the Art Chan et al. KR 10-2015-0113484A teach an anti-enterovirus composition having natural extracts mixed solvent containing purified water and includes a carbonation agent in which an organic and inorganic acid are mixed. The reference does not teach however sodium and calcium chloride at the recited ratios, a mixture of the instantly claimed extracts and chloric acid compound present. The prior art does not teach the amounts and ratios of the claimed ingredients. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)270-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:30pm 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, David Blanchard can be reached at 571-272-0827. 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. /SARAH ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588693
COMPOSITION FOR PRODUCING HYDROGEN RICH WATER AND OTHER PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569475
METHOD FOR ERADICATING HELICOBACTER PYLORI INFECTION IN PATIENTS REGARDLESS OF BODY MASS INDEX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564603
METHODS FOR INHIBITING PATHOGENIC INFECTION AND INHIBITING GROWTH OF PATHOGENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558374
Botanical Film-Forming Acne Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558454
ULTRAHIGH DUCTILITY, NOVEL Mg-Li BASED ALLOYS FOR BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
37%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+38.7%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 661 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