Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/055,744

Composition for the control of oral malodor compounds

Non-Final OA §103§112§DP
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner
ROBERTS, LEZAH
Art Unit
1612
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Helix Science LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 750 resolved
-11.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
78 currently pending
Career history
828
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 750 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112 §DP
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' arguments in the Request for Continued Examination, filed December 3, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Indefiniteness (New Rejection) Claim 20 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. The claim recites the limitation “the composition is compounded to be suitable for delivery through” then goes on to recite “soluble”. It is not clear what is meant by “soluble”. This does not appear to be a formulation. The claim also recites “further comprising”. However, there appears to be no additional components incorporated into the composition of the instant claims. Therefore the claim is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness (Modified Rejection) 1) Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101176698. The rejection is maintained and further applied to claim 16. CN 101176698 discloses compositions comprising magnesium salts. The compositions may be used to eliminate halitosis (page 4, paragraph eight). Magnesium salts include magnesium carbonate (insoluble), magnesium hydroxide and magnesium oxide (page 3). The magnesium salt has a particle size ranging reach nanometer level, 0.1 nm. The magnesium salt may have a particle size ranging from 0.1 to 0.15 nm and comprises 0.001 to 100% (page 4, second paragraph). The mouthwash comprises the magnesium salt and a proper thickening agent (instant claim 20). The product is made into uniform suspension with a thickener. Thickeners include sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, gum Arabic, sodium carbomer, hydroxyethyl starch, sodium alginate, tragacanth, tara gum, ghatti gum, agar, and sodium starch glycolate (page 4, paragraph five) (meeting keratinophilic polymers). CN 101176698 discloses the particle size of the magnesium salt and the amount of salt ranges from 0.1 to 0.15 nm and 0.001 to 100%, respectively, whereas the instant claims recite 1 to 1000 nm and 1 to 100 ppm, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Accordingly, since an overlap plainly exists here, it would have been obvious to have selected values within the overlap. Response to Arguments The Examiner submits that it does not appear Applicant has argued the merits of the rejection. However, the Examiner points out that the new claims 19-20 are encompasses by the reference. CN 101176698 discloses using an insoluble magnesium salt that is not an oxide or soluble. The salts may be used in combination with a polymer encompassed by keratinophilic polymers. Therefore the rejection is maintained. 2) Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeyer (WO 2022046977) in view of CN 101176698. Niedermeyer discloses a nanoparticle composition for oral care including at least one of a first set of spherical nanoparticles or a second set of coral shaped nanoparticles, and a stabilizing agent. The nanoparticle composition is added to a carrier suitable for application to an oral cavity, including to teeth and surrounding oral tissues. The nanoparticle composition is configured to control the pH of the microenvironment to which it is applied, thereby preventing and/or treating a variety of oral conditions. The nanoparticle composition can be provided as a concentrated nanoparticle additive addable to a mouthwash, mouth rinse, dentifrice, mouth spray, oral gel, denture cleaning solution, or other carrier suitable for oral application (Abstract). The spherical nanoparticles include spherical metal nanoparticles. The spherical-shaped metal nanoparticles can have a diameter of about 40 nm or less (paragraph 0028). The metal nanoparticles, a metal, a mixture of metals, or a metal alloy, including at least one of silver, gold, tin, zinc, heterogeneous mixtures thereof, or alloys thereof. Preferred embodiments comprise silver and/or gold nanoparticles (paragraph 0037). A stabilizing agent is used and may itself be beneficial for use in oral care applications. Examples of stabilizing agents include alcohols generally (e.g., ethanol), as alcohols have been observed to effectively maintain nanoparticles of different sizes and different shapes within a given solution. Stabilizing agents can be dissolved into a carrier (e.g., water, alcohol, water alcohol combination, or any combination of other liquid phase materials readily applied to the oral cavity and/or to surrounding tissue of a person or animal) (paragraph 0049). The stabilizing agents have the capacity to hold the at least two differently sized and/or shaped nanoparticles in suspension and deliver these nanoparticles to the targeted area of a person or animal (e.g., the oral cavity or surrounding tissues) without diminishing the effectiveness of the nanoparticles (paragraph 0051). The nanoparticle composition may also include a carrier, or the stabilizing agent may itself function as a carrier. The carrier can be a liquid, gel, or solid. Carriers useful according the present disclosure can include a variety of additional ingredients. The concentration of the nanoparticle in an oral care composition is at least 0.5 to 1.5 ppm (paragraph 0079). The composition may further comprise at least one polymer. The polymer includes polysaccharides, polysaccharide gums, xanthan gum or combinations of polymers (paragraph 0063). Niedermeyer differs from the instant claims insofar as it does not exemplify an aqueous composition comprising a mucoadhesive polymer. However, Niedermeyer does disclose that polymers may be added to the compositions. CN 101176698 is discussed above and discloses xanthan gum maybe used in mouthwash compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have formulated an oral rinse with xanthan gum and the nanoparticles of Niedermeyer because it is suggested by Niedermeyer and because xanthan gum is suitable to make oral rinses comprising particles as disclosed by CN 101176698. In regards to agitating the composition to disperse, the composition of the prior art are suspensions. Therefore one would reasonably conclude that the composition should be agitated because they comprise particles. In regards to tasteless, the compositions comprise a metal in an amount encompassed by the instant claims. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the compositions are tasteless. Obvious-Type Double Patenting (Modified Rejection) Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are coextensive insofar as they both recite an aqueous oral composition for controlling halitosis comprising a metal and a thickener. The instant claims differ from the patented claims insofar as the instant claims are genus claims reciting several metals whereas the patented claims recite a specific metal and thickener in the independent claims. Therefore the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims. Response to Arguments The Examiner argues that the patented claims are not distinct from the instant claims because they both recite the same subject matter of a metal and keratinophilic/mucoadhesive polymer for treating halitosis. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Conclusion Claims 19-20 are rejected. No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30. 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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. /LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
May 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Jul 31, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 13, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 18, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Feb 23, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594229
Personal Care Compositions and Methods for the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594241
TOPIRAMATE ORAL LIQUID SUSPENSION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582583
ORAL CARE PRODUCT COMPRISING AN ORAL CARE RHEOLOGICAL SOLID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558387
MULTI-VIRUS ANTI-INFECTIVITY AND PRO-IMMUNITY ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551417
STABILIZED STANNOUS COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+36.4%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 750 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