Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/101,659

FLOOR CLEANING PAD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 26, 2023
Examiner
KARLS, SHAY LYNN
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Procter & Gamble Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1308 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1308 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/25. 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Weyhmiller (PGPub 2019150695). Weyhmiller teaches a floor sheet, wherein said floor sheet comprises at least two regions (24A, B, 26A, B) of absorbent materials including a first region (24A, B) comprising a relatively medium absorbency material (paragraph 0016; lower) and a second region (26A, B), wherein said second region comprises one or both of a relatively low absorbency material and a relatively high absorbency material (26A, 26B), wherein said relatively low absorbency material is 1.1 to 1.35 times less absorbent than said relatively medium absorbency material and said relatively high absorbency material is 1.1 to 1.35 times more absorbent than said relatively medium absorbency material (paragraph 0015 states that the absorption rate is about 1.36 times higher than that of the relatively lower (medium) absorbency material; about 1.36 reads on 1.35), wherein said first region and said second region together have a combined planar area (figure 1), wherein said first region comprises from more than 30% to 65% of said combined planar area (paragraph 0020; 50%), wherein said second region comprises from 30% to less than 60% of said combined planar area (paragraph 0020; 40%), wherein said first region and said second region form a substantially coplanar floor engaging surface (figure 2). With regards to claim 2, the relatively low absorbency material is 1.15 to 1.3 times less absorbent than said relatively medium absorbency material (for this claim; 24A, B are considered to be the 2nd region with a low absorbency and 26A, B are considered to be the first region with a medium absorbency; thus, about 1.36 is considered to be 1.3). With regards to claim 3, the relatively high absorbency material is 1.15 to 1.3 times more absorbent than said relatively medium absorbency material (about 1.36 can be considered to be 1.3). With regards to claim 4, the first region comprises from more than 40% to 60% of said combined planar area (paragraph 0020; 50%). With regards to claim 5, the second region comprises from 35% to less than 50% of said combined planar area (paragraph 0020; 40%). With regards to claim 6, the cleaning pad has a longitudinal axis and comprises: a front edge (19) and back edge (16) opposite said front edge, wherein said front edge and said back edge cross said longitudinal axis; and a pair of side edges (20, 22) on opposite sides of said longitudinal axis connecting said front edge to said back edge; wherein said first region comprises at least two spaced apart first region strips extending across said longitudinal axis and said first region strips are separated by at least part of said second region (figure 1). With regards to claim 18, the second region (26A, B) comprises both said relatively low absorbency material (28) and said relatively high absorbency material (26A, 26B). With regards to claim 20, the method of cleaning a floor comprising the steps of: providing the cleaning pad; engaging the cleaning pad with a mop head of a cleaning device (150); and wiping said floor with said cleaning pad; wherein said floor is dry (paragraph 0022). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 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. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyhmiller (‘695) in view of Wildeman (USPN 8060973). Weyhmiller teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including that the strips could be something other than linear, such as snake-like or undulating configurations or other configurations (paragraph 0025) however the reference fails that the regions form a chevron shape. Wildeman teaches a cleaning pad with strips of cleaning elements that form a chevron shape (figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cleaning strips of Weyhmiller so that they are chevron shaped as taught by Wildeman since changing the shape is a modification that has been considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04. Further, the applicant fails to disclose that the chevron shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weyhmiller with Wildeman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyhmiller (‘695) Weyhmiller teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention, including that the first region comprises from more than 30% to 60% of said combined planar area (50%), wherein said second region comprises a high absorbency region (26A, B) from 30% to less than 60% of said combined planar area (40%) and a lower absorbency region (28) from 10% (paragraph 0020), however, the reference fails to teach that the second region comprises from 25% to 35% of said combined planar area of said relatively low absorbency material, wherein said second region further comprises from 25% to 35% of said combined planar area of said relatively high absorbency material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second region so that the low absorbency material and the high absorbency material fall within the claimed ranges to create a cleaning pad that has a higher scrubbing surface for those difficult to clean areas. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyhmiller (‘695) in view of Wildeman (USPN 8060973). Weyhmiller teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that a solution is applied to the floor and the floor is used to wipe the solution away. Wildeman teaches a mop pad that is attached to a cleaning device that is used on a surface after a liquid cleaning solution is applied to the surface to remove dissolved dirt away from the surface (col. 7, lines 49-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weyhmiller so that it is used with a cleaning solution as taught by Wildeman to allow for any dirt on the surface to more easily removed due to the liquid cleaning solution. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm). 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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. /SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594588
Sucker Rod Wiping Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583012
LOCKING ASSEMBLY AND ROLLER ASSEMBLY EMPLOYING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576318
TOWEL WITH INTEGRATED BRUSH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575662
TOOTHBRUSH WITH REPLACEABLE BRUSH HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569324
ORAL CARE SYSTEM, IMPLEMENT, AND/OR KIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
69%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1308 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