Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/533,651

ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THEIR PREPARATION AND USE IN TREATING PLANT DISEASES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
DENNIS, KEVIN M
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tj Biotech LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
65 granted / 186 resolved
-17.1% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
234
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 186 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 . Application Status Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/08/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 05/07/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests changing “pH of from” in line 7 to --pH in the range of--. 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 11-20 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. Claim 11 recites the phrase "an OTC solution" in line 5. This is a double inclusion of “an acidified oxytetracycline solution” in line 1. The Examiner suggests changing “an OTC solution” to --the acidified OTC solution--. Claim 11 recites the phrase "a bacterial infection in a plant" in line 6. This is a double inclusion of “a bacterial infection in a plant” in line 2. The Examiner suggests changing “a bacterial infection in a plant” to --the bacterial infection in the plant--. Claim 11 recites the phrase “the OTC or the salt thereof having a purity sufficient to generate an OTC solution that is substantially stable for a time period required for its delivery to a plant” in lines 7-9. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear what a sufficient “purity” of the OTC or the salt thereof is referencing. It is unclear what constitutes a sufficient “purity” or how the term “purity” relates to the chemical composition of the OTC or the salt thereof within the scope of the claim. Further clarification is required. Claim 11 recites the phrase "an OTC solution" in line 8. This is a double inclusion of “an acidified oxytetracycline solution” in line 1. The Examiner suggests changing “an OTC solution” to --the acidified OTC solution--. Claim 11 recites the phrase "a plant" in line 9. This is a double inclusion of “a plant” in line 2. The Examiner suggests changing “a plant” to --the plant--. Claim 11 recites the phrase "a plant" in line 10. This is a double inclusion of “a plant” in line 2. The Examiner suggests changing “a plant” to --the plant--. Claim 12 recites the phrase "a purity" in lines 1-2. This is a double inclusion of “a purity” in line 7 of claim 11. Claim 17 recites the phrase "systemic delivery" in line 1. This is a double inclusion of “delivering the OTC solution systemically” in line 10 of claim 11. The Examiner suggests changing “systemic delivery” to --the systemic delivery--. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 12-20 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of plant disease treatment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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. /KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12514236
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12490692
AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC FOREST ROVER FOR AUTOMATED RESIN COLLECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12484560
MULTIPLE MODE ARTIFICIAL FISHING LURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12408636
FISH CAGE WITH IMPROVED WATER EXCHANGE AND FARMING CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12382956
ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING PLANT DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
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
35%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+48.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 186 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