Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/592,767

Dry Insecticide Mixtures, Distributors, and Methods of Distributing a Dry Insecticide

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Examiner
MI, QIUWEN
Art Unit
1655
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Jones-Hamilton Co.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
1065 granted / 1565 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1606
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1565 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are examined on the merits. Claim Objections Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “SBS” at line 1, which is incorrect, as the full name of SBS was not mentioned in the claims. The correct recitation should be “sodium bisulfate” (SBS) in claim 1, at line 1. Claims 4-6 are objected for the reason. All other cited claims depend directly or indirectly from objected claims and are, therefore, also, objected for the reasons set forth above. Claim Objections Claims 11-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al (CN 102145297 A). Fan et al teach the title solid acid catalyst contains 5-50 wt.% of bisulfate (ammonium bisulfate, sodium bisulfate (thus the claimed SBS) or potassium bisulfate) as active component and balance of SiO2, ZnO, TiO2, ZrO2, Fe2O3, diatomite (thus the claimed mechanical insectide diatomaceous earth, thus claims 7 and 8 are met), or activated carbon as support. The title solid acid catalyst is prepd. by calcining support at 400-600° for 3-6 h to obtain pre-treated support, soaking the pre-treated support in 3.5-60 wt.% (concn.) bisulfate soln. at 20-30° for 3-8 h, stirring at 60-100° for 1-3 h, and drying (thus the claimed dry) at 100-200° for 12-24 h (see Abstract). Fan et al teach the solid acid catalyst according to claim 1 or 3, characterized in that in the step (2), the volume of the bisulfate aqueous solution is 1.55 to 2.06 mL / g based on the mass of the carrier (see claim 4) (thus claims 2-4, 9, and 10 are met). Therefore, the reference is deemed to anticipate the instant claim above. Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fan et al as applied to claims 1, 7, and 8 above. The teachings of Fan et al are set forth above and applied as before. The teachings of Fan et al do not specifically teach the claimed percentages of sodium bisulfate and the dry insecticide in claims 2-4, 9, and 10. Fan et al teach the solid acid catalyst according to claim 1 or 3, characterized in that in the step (2), the volume of the bisulfate aqueous solution is 1.55 to 2.06 mL / g based on the mass of the carrier (see claim 4) (thus claims 2-4, 9, and 10 are met). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed percentages of sodium bisulfate and the dry insecticide in claims 2-4, 9, and 10 since Fan et al teach the volume of the bisulfate aqueous solution is 1.55 to 2.06 mL/g based on the mass of the carrier, and the carrier is diatomite, etc., which is the claimed mechanical insectide diatomaceous earth. When sodium bisulfate is 1.55 to 2.06 g, and when diatomaceous earth is 1 g, the claimed percentages of sodium bisulfate and the dry insecticide in claims 2-4, 9, and 10 is met. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. 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. /Qiuwen Mi/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599632
THERAPEUTIC AGENT FOR NERVE DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599552
COSMETIC COMPOSITION CONTAINING EXTRACT OF CYPERUS ROTUNDUS FOR ANTI-INFLAMMATION, SKIN SOOTHING, IRRITATION RELIEF, AND SKIN BARRIER ENHANCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594233
FAT AND/OR WAX ACTIVATED BY MEANS OF THE WATER-INSOLUBLE FRACTION OF CARICA PAPAYA SAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594316
PLANT COMPOSITION, TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE COMPOSITION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589121
METHOD FOR OBTAINING OCCLUSIVE BIOLOGICAL DRESSING, OCCLUSIVE BIOLOGICAL DRESSING, USE THEREOF AND KIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1565 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