Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/576,124

A STABLE BLEACH COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 03, 2024
Examiner
ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONOPCO, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 808 resolved
-5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
838
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.3%
+18.3% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 808 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherry et al. (US 2018/0371377 A1) in view of Casella et al. (US 2005/0229327 A1). Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Sherry teaches an aqueous cleaning and antimicrobial composition (abstract, 4, 45-46) comprising; i)- a peroxide such as hydrogen peroxide (instant claim 2) in the amount of 0.2-5 wt.%; [60], ii)- cationic surfactant of cetyldimethyl ammonium bromide (i.e. chloride) and cetylpyridinium bromide (i.e. chloride) in amounts of 0.5-5 wt.%; [49, 53], iii)- organic acids (instant claim 5) such as citric, lactic, and maleic in amounts of 2-6 wt.%; [18-19], iv)- glycol solvents (and surface modifying agents) such as glycol ethers, e.g. ethylene glycol dimethyl ether; [50, 65], in the amounts of 0.5-3 wt.%; [141-142, 174], and v)- water in the amounts such as 90 wt.%; [table 1]. Regarding claims 1, and 6-7, Sherry does not, expressly, teach the instantly claimed polyalkylene glycols with the stated molecular weights. However, the analogous art of Casella teaches a cleaning and disinfecting composition with bleaching and antimicrobial active agents; [102-103], comprising polyethylene glycol with molecular weights of 200 D to 600 D (preferably); [131]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the polyethylene glycol of Casella for Sherry, by addition, with the motivation of further solubilizing, and thus further stabilizing, the composition for intended applications as taught by both Casella and Sherry above. Regarding claims 3, 4, 8 and 13, Sherry teaches the amphoteric surfactants such as decyl dimethyl amine oxide (C12H27NO); [34, table 1], and nonionic polymer of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (instant 8) ; [65]. Sherry, also, teaches (instant 13) the amphoteric surfactant of betaine; [32]. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherry et al. (US 2018/0371377 A1) in view of Casella et al. (US 2005/0229327 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Boyd et al. (TW I407974 B; 2013-09-11). Regarding claim 14, Sherry does not teach the instantly claimed amphoteric surfactant of cocoaminopropyl betaine. However, the analogous art of Boyd teaches a surface cleaning composition (i.e. hard surfaces, house hold cleaning and polishing applications); [abstract, 9-11, 38], comprising cocoaminopropyl betaine; [56]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the cocoaminoprpyl betaine of Boyd to Sherry’s composition with the motivation of using a mild and surface friendly (i.e. when polishing) chemical agent as taught by Boyd above; [abstract, 5, 8]. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M.R.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767 2026/04/01 /MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 03, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595439
Concentrated Flowable Washing Agent Preparation Having Improved Properties
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595437
CATIONIC NONIONIC BLENDS FOR CLEANING OILY SOILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595438
BIODEGRADABLE QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576176
Quat-Based Compostable and Biodegradable Premoistened Cleaning and Disinfecting Wipes System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580127
DIELECTRIC SLURRY COMPOSITION AND MULTILAYER ELECTRONIC COMPONENT USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 808 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