Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/703,046

METHOD FOR PRODUCING EMULSION COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Priority
Oct 25, 2021 — JP 2021-174037 +2 more
Examiner
DAVIS, BRIAN J
Art Unit
1614
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Kao Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
1341 granted / 1581 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1618
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1581 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restriction Inventor’s election, with traverse, of (A) polyquaternium-39, (B) sodium polyacrylate, (C) lactic acid, and (D) water as the components of the composition of the elected species is acknowledged. Inventor argues that the USPTO has not carried its burden of proof to establish distinctness of the inventions. The distinctness of the instant inventions (i.e. the distinctness of the members of the set of the universe of possible combinations of components A, B, C and D) arises from the structural distinctness of the components themselves. For instance, a combination of cationized guar gum (component A), Carbopol 980 (component B), acetic acid (component C), and water (component D) is patentably different and distinct from a combination of an alkyl acrylamide-(meth)acrylate-alkylamino alkylacrylamide-polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate copolymer (component A), carboxymethylethyl cellulose (component B), methanesulfonic acid (component C), and water (component D). These are separate and distinct inventions because the compounds of which they are comprised (A, B and C) are structurally distinct. There is simply no special technical feature which links them. A universe of other combinations is also, of course, possible – which also do not share a special technical feature. (Note that the possible component combinations above are simply selections from the possible component choices explicitly taught in the instant specification. Specific examples of component (A), which begin on page 7, [0022], are cationized guar gum (page 7, [0022]) and an alkyl acrylamide-(meth)acrylate-alkylamino alkylacrylamide-polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate copolymer (page 7, [0022]). Specific examples of component (B), which begin on page 11, [0028], are Carbopol 980 (page 13, [0034]) and carboxymethylethyl cellulose (page 13, line 6). Specific examples of component (C), which begin at page 14, [0035], are acetic acid (page 14, [0036]) and methanesulfonic acid (page 14, [0036]).) The outstanding election/restriction requirement was formulated merely in order to facilitate the reasonably complete and thorough search to which inventor is entitled is hereby made FINAL. Markush Search All claims have been examined with respect to formal matters. The elected species has been searched and is deemed free of the prior art. The search was, therefore, expanded as called for under Markush examination practice to include a single additional combination: Component A: polyepsilon-lysine (a cationic polymer); Component B: sodium hyaluronate (an anionic polymer); Component C: phytic acid (an organic acid); Component D: water. All claimed but as yet unexamined subject matter which does not read on the above combination is hereby withdrawn from consideration, for purposes of this Office Action, as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. This subject matter will be rejoined as appropriate as the Markush examination progresses. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 14-16, in so far as they read on the combination above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2021/125069 A1. The reference teaches a composition of 0.20 g of sodium hyaluronate, 0.40 g of polyepsilon-lysine, 98.79 g of water and 0.11g of phytic acid (page 27, Example 1). The reference further teaches a method of preparing an oil-in-water emulsion of this composition by mixing this composition with 0.05-0.40 wt% (based on the total weight of the composition) of any of several oils: squalane, isopropyl myristate, octyl dodecanol, caprylic/capric triglyceride, apricot oil and dimethicone (page 40, [Emulsification Evaluations]; page 41, Table 4). Claims 6 and 11 are included in this rejection because their limitations are intrinsic to the prior art method. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT. 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 8/1/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 19, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703696
Diacylglycerol Acyl Transferase 2 Inhibitors
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12702661
METHODS OF TREATMENT OF TUBEROUS SCLEROSIS COMPLEX
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697333
Methods of Treating Splenomegaly
4y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691100
NOVEL USE
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12678516
IMMUNOSTIMULATORY TOLL-LIKE RECEPTOR AGONIST-NANOPARTICLE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (-4.1%)
1y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1581 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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