Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/487,241

METHOD FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASE CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY MICROORGANISMS OR RELIEVING SYMPTOMS THEREOF

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 16, 2023
Examiner
ROBERTS, LEZAH
Art Unit
1612
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Arms Pharmaceutical LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 750 resolved
-11.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
78 currently pending
Career history
828
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 750 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Applicants' arguments in the Request for Continued Examination, filed December 9, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims Obvious-Type Double Patenting (Maintained Rejections) 1) Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,535,646. The rejection is maintained and further applied to claims 6-7 and 22. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive insofar as both sets of claims recite method of inhibiting microorganisms that cause infectious diseases using the same compositions wherein each component is used in the same concentration range. The patented claims differ from the instant claims insofar as instant claims are genus claims of the patented claims. Therefore the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims. Response to Amendments The Examiner submits that the method of the instant claims comprise the same method steps using the same compositions as those of the patented claims. Further microorganisms encompass bacteria as in the instantly recited bacterial infections. An election of species was made, however this did not result in claims being withdrawn. Further, although the other diseases were removed from the claims, this was not required for the election of species because the diseases were recited in one claim. Therefore, once the generic claim was deemed allowable, the dependent claims would have also been allowable. Therefore, the method of the instant claims is obvious over the patented claims. 2) Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,992,893. The rejection is maintained and further applied to claims 6-7 and 22. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both encompass the same composition having about 0.01% to about 0.4% of a carbohydrate gum, about 7% to about 65% of a humectant and greater than 0.05% of an antimicrobial. The instant claims differ from the patented claims insofar as they disclose a method of using the compositions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of the patented claims in the method of instant claims because it is the same composition and the patented claims recite that the composition is a barrier forming composition having antimicrobial properties. Therefore the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims. Response to Amendments The Examiner submits that the method of the instant claims comprise the same method steps using the same compositions as those of the patented claims. Further microorganisms encompass bacteria as in the instantly recited bacterial infections. An election of species was made, however this did not result in claims being withdrawn. Further, although the other diseases were removed from the claims, this was not required for the election of species because the diseases were recited in one claim. Therefore, once the generic claim was deemed allowable, the dependent claims would have also been allowable. Further, the patented claims are drawn to a composition, the same composition used in the method of the instant claims. Therefore, the method of the instant claims is obvious over the patented claims. 3) Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,398,645. The rejection is maintained and further applied to claims 6-7 and 22. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both encompass the same composition having about 0.01% to about 0.4% of a carbohydrate gum, about 7% to about 65% of a humectant and greater than 0.05% of an antimicrobial. The instant claims differ from the patented claims insofar as they disclose a method of using the compositions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of the patented claims in the method of instant claims because it is the same composition and the patented claims recite that the composition is a barrier forming composition having antimicrobial properties. Therefore the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims. Response to Amendments The Examiner submits that the method of the instant claims comprise the same method steps using the same compositions as those of the patented claims. Further, both sets of claims recite upper respiratory tract infections. Thus, the instant claims are species claims of the patented claims. Therefore, the method of the instant claims is obvious over the patented claims. Conclusion Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected. No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30. 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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. /LEZAH ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594229
Personal Care Compositions and Methods for the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594241
TOPIRAMATE ORAL LIQUID SUSPENSION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582583
ORAL CARE PRODUCT COMPRISING AN ORAL CARE RHEOLOGICAL SOLID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558387
MULTI-VIRUS ANTI-INFECTIVITY AND PRO-IMMUNITY ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551417
STABILIZED STANNOUS COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+36.4%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 750 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month