Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/148,361

DRAIN UNCLOGGER TOOL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2022
Examiner
RODGERS, THOMAS RAYMOND
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
220 granted / 375 resolved
-11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+60.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
417
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 375 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 does not appear to have the proper formatting. Words that have been removed should appear in the claims with a strike through the word. New words should be underlined. As such the claim should be: “5. (Currently Amended) A drain unclogger tool consisting of: a coiled helical wire spring base in a cylindrical shape an [[a]] L-shaped crank handle 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2015/0176263) in view of KR200276644, herein referenced as KR 644. Regarding claim 5, Lei discloses a drain unclogger tool consisting of: a coiled helical wire spring base in a cylindrical shape for trapping debris and hair (Item 160), a straight shaft that is flexible as the stem of the tool drain unclogger tool (Item 155), and a handle as the grasping point of the drain unclogger tool (Item 120), wherein the drain unclogger tool is made by only one single flexible piece to follow the curve of a drain (Paragraph 16). Lei fails to disclose an l-shaped The crank handle. But does disclose in Paragraph 32 that it can be any shape. KR644 teaches a drain unclogging tool wherein the handle is L shaped (Item 31 Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the handle of Lei for the L shaped handle of KR 644. Lei discusses in Paragraph 32 that the handle can be any shape. KR644 gives an example in the art how the handle can be l shaped. Thus leading one skilled in the art to the predictable result of a handle that can guide and apply torque to the pipe cleaning tool. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/26/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under Lei in view of Sincock have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lei in view of KR 644. Applicant argues lack of enablement and lack of definiteness to Lei’s claim of “any shape”. The Examiner believes Applicant is misinterpreting the rejection. Lei stating the handle can be any shape, means Lei does not limit their design to the specific handle shown in the figures. The Examiner relies on the handle of KR 644 to teach the l shape. Applicant argues Sincock and Lei are non analogous. Althought he examiner disagrees with this argument, the Examiner has changed references to help further prosecution and show the l shaped handle is well known in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST. 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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. /TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 28, 2025
Response Filed
May 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 12, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599942
EXTRACTION DEVICE AND MECHANISMS, AND USE IN RECYCLING BEVERAGE CAPSULES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583724
CAP OPENING AND CLOSING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569111
Footwear Vacuum Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558578
Demolishing of glazing at a distance
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557904
PAINT BRUSH CLEANING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+60.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 375 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month