Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/205,140

DOCUMENT REMEDIATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
WAN, DEMING
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Federal Bureau Of Investigation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
691 granted / 903 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 903 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 . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,396,582 to Kodera. In Reference to Claim 1 Kodera discloses a document (The Office considers that the document is working media of recited machine, it is merely a working environment, not a part of the structure) remediation system comprising: a dryer (Fig. 5, 88) configured to dry a document and output a dried document; a cleaning device (Fig. 6, 150, a vacuum cleaner, Kodera does not teach the cleaner is after the dryer, the Office considers that that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. ) configured to receive the dried document, remove debris therefrom, and output a cleaned document; and a sanitizer (Fig. 5, 20) configured to receive the cleaned document, disinfect the cleaned document, and output a remediated document. Kodera does not teach the cleaner is positioned behind the dryer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the cleaner at a desired location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In Reference to Claim 2 Kodera discloses a vacuum connected to at least one of the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer and configured to remove document debris from one or more of the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer. (dust remover 150 takes the form of a vacuum cleaner comprising a pair of suction boxes 152) In Reference to Claim 3 Kodera discloses a transportation device (Fig. 5, P) interconnecting the dryer, the cleaning device and the sanitizer, wherein the transportation device is configured to convey the document through the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer. In Reference to Claim 5 Kodera discloses an actuator (Fig. 5, 122) coupled to the transportation device to move the transportation device and control the speed thereof. In Reference to Claims 9 and 10 Kodera discloses the dryer includes one or more fans (Fig. 5, 90, Kodera teaches air nozzles) positioned to dry the document. In Reference to Claim 13 Kodera discloses the cleaning device includes at least brushes to remove the debris from the document. (As showed in Fig. 5, 156) In Reference to Claim 14 Kodera discloses the sanitizer includes one or more UV lights. (Fig. 5, 20, 134) In Reference to Claim 15 Kodera discloses the dryer (Fig. 5, 88), cleaning device (Fig. 5, 150) and sanitization device (Fig. 5, 10) are modular components. In Reference to Claim 16 Kodera discloses a containment system containing the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer. (Since Kodera teaches a system to clean and sanitize, obviously, the system is used to remove containments) In Reference to Claim 20 Kodera discloses a method for remediating a document (The office considers that document is a working environment of the recited structure) comprising: receiving a document; drying (Fig. 5, 88) the document; automatically adjusting a time for drying the document and outputting a dried document; (Kodera discloses the drying process is performed by heater and air nozzles. Therefore, the drying time would be determined by the temperature of the drying air. Kodera controls the temperature, as a result, the drying time would be controlled.) cleaning (Fig. 6, 150) the dried document, removing debris therefrom, and outputting a cleaned document; sanitizing the cleaned (Fig. 5, 20) document and outputting a remediated document. Kodera does not teach the cleaner is positioned behind the dryer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the cleaner at a desired location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Claims 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera in view of US Patent Publication 20180272689 to Yanagi. In Reference to Claims 11 and 12 Kodera discloses the drying device. Kodera does not teach moisture sensors. Yanagi teaches one or more sensors (Fig. 12A, 536) configured to detect a moisture content of the document within the dryer It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Yanagi into the design of Kodera. Doing so, would result in a moisture sensor being implemented into the system on Kodera to monitor the moisture content of the working media. Both inventions of Kodera and Yanagi having an automatic drying system, Yanagi teaches an active control drying process with sensors so the drying efficiency would be increase. Once the moisture sensor is implemented, obviously, the during of the drying would also be determined based on the moisture level measured by the sensor. In Reference to Claim 17 Kodera discloses a document remediation system comprising: a dryer (Fig. 5, 88) configured to dry a document and output a dried document;; a cleaning device (Fig. 6, 150) configured to receive the dried document, remove debris therefrom, and output a cleaned document; a sanitizer (Fig. 5, 20) configured to receive the cleaned document, disinfect the cleaned document, and output a remediated document; a vacuum (Fig. 6, 156) connected to at least one of the dryer, the cleaning device and the sanitizer and configured to remove document debris from one or more of the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer; and a transportation device (Fig. 5, P) interconnecting the dryer, the cleaning device and the sanitizer, the transportation device being configured to receive the document and convey the document through at least the dryer, the cleaning device, and the sanitizer. Kodera does not teach the cleaner is positioned behind the dryer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the cleaner at a desired location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Kodera does not teach a moisture sensor. Yanagi teaches one or more sensors (Fig. 12A, 536) configured to detect a moisture content of the document within the dryer It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Yanagi into the design of Kodera. Doing so, would result in a moisture sensor being implemented into the system on Kodera to monitor the moisture content of the working media. Both inventions of Kodera and Yanagi having an automatic drying system, Yanagi teaches an active control drying process with sensors so the drying efficiency would be increase. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6-8 and 18-19 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM. 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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. DEMING . WAN Examiner Art Unit 3748 /DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/11/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601103
FOREIGN SUBSTRATE COLLECTOR FOR A LAUNDRY APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590394
Air Bypass Seal With Backer For Improved Drying Performance In A Combination Washer/Dryer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590400
HANGER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588452
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578142
DRY SPACE CREATION APPARATUS AND DRY SPACE CREATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 903 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