Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/573,131

HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL CLEANING ARTICLES WITH MORAXELLA SP. INHIBITING ACTIVITY

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner
KOLKER, DANIEL E
Art Unit
1645
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Carl Freudenberg Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
121 granted / 243 resolved
-10.2% vs TC avg
Strong +65% interview lift
Without
With
+65.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
282
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 243 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Applicants preliminary amendment filed December 21, 2023 has been received and entered. New claims 15-16 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application. 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. 1. Claim 9 is 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. Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 2. Claim 12 is 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. Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 3. Claim 13 is 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. Regarding claim 13 the phrase "preferably/most preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Simply stated, a claim limitation is either a claim limitation or not, there are no “preferable/non-preferable” claim limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 4. Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kandzia et al. The claims are drawn to a household and/or commercial cleaning article having a textile layer, a foam or sponge layer, and/or an abrasive layer, with Moraxella sp. inhibiting activity. Kandzia et al (WO 2017/157773) disclose of methods for degrading malodors in dish washing machines, laundry washing machines and in the area of ceramic sanitary through contact of the surfaces with bacterial spores. (See abstract). Kandzia et al further disclose the bacterial spores to be Bacillus atrophaeus or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. (See claim 1). Kandzia et al further disclose sponges dipped in a solution containing the bacterial spores. (See Example 3). It is noted that Kandzia et al do not characterize the Moraxella sp. inhibiting activity as less than 0.025 in a long term polymer-matrix test, or at least 0.3 grades as measured by VDA270. However, as the composition disclosed by Kandzia achieved the same end result, inhibition of bacterial growth, it is deemed to be an inherent property of the claimed composition. Since the Patent office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants product with the product of the prior art reference, the burden is on Applicants to show an unobvious distinction between the material structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product and the product of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art discloses the identical composition, (sponge coated with Bacillus atrophaeus) the properties applicant discloses and/or claims (inhibiting Moraxella sp.) are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 5. Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vance et al. The claims are drawn to a household and/or commercial cleaning article having a textile layer, a foam or sponge layer, and/or an abrasive layer, with Moraxella sp. inhibiting activity. Vance et al (US Patent Number 5,744,688) disclose of a cellulose and nylon sponge saturated with B. subtilis. (See Example 1). Vance et al further disclose the inhibtion of vegetative bacteria, fungi, viruses, parasites, mycobacteria and bacterial spores. (See table 1). Vance et al further disclose of 2.5 x 107 CFU/ml. (See Example 1). It is noted that Vance et al do not characterize the Moraxella sp. inhibiting activity as less than 0.025 in a long term polymer-matrix test, or at least 0.3 grades as measured by VDA270. However, as the composition disclosed by Vance achieved the same end result, inhibition of bacterial growth, it is deemed to be an inherent property of the claimed composition. Since the Patent office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants product with the product of the prior art reference, the burden is on Applicants to show an unobvious distinction between the material structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product and the product of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art discloses the identical composition, (sponge soaked with Bacillus subtilis) the properties applicant discloses and/or claims (inhibiting Moraxella sp.) are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-0861. 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, Vanessa Ford can be reached at 571 272-0857. 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. /ALBERT M NAVARRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645 December 3, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564620
TREATMENT OF GULF WAR ILLNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551459
A COMBINATION OF KYNURENINE AND ANTIGEN PRESENTING CELLS (APC) AS THERAPEUTICS AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE IN IMMUNE MODULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12071478
ANTIBODY FOR TREATING AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 27, 2024
Patent 12048765
LIPOSOME-BASED IMMUNOTHERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 30, 2024
Patent 11613585
NUCLEIC ACIDS ENCODING ANTAGONISTIC CD40 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 28, 2023
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
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+65.0%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 243 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