Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/230,628

BATHTUB ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 05, 2023
Examiner
BELL, SPENCER E
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
413 granted / 648 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
698
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 648 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a magnetic attractable piece” in the third line should be “a second magnetic attractable piece”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are 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. Claim 1 states that the drawable blowing mechanism is installed at the air outlet on the upper surface of the bathtub body. However, the claim recites that an air outlet is located on the upper surface of the bathtub body or above the bathtub body. It is unclear whether the claim requires a drawable blowing mechanism in an embodiment in which the air outlet is above the body instead of on the upper surface of the body, since the drawable blowable mechanism is only claimed to be installed at an air outlet on the upper surface of the body. It is assumed that the blowing mechanism would be installed at an air outlet on the upper surface of the body or above the body. Claims 2 and 3recite the air outlet on the upper surface of the bathtub body. As discussed above, it is unclear if an air outlet above the bathtub body is also contemplated. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the air outlet" (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which air outlet is being referred to. Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is CN105299892A by Situ. Situ teaches a bathtub assembly having a body 1 with a concave part and a ventilation space inside the body, an air inlet at an upper surface of the body, an outlet 5, and a hot air device 2 arranged independently of the body, an air outlet of the device communicated with the air inlet (fig. 1). Situ does not teach a ventilation pipeline arranged spirally around the concave part of the bathtub body. It was known to have a pipeline spirally arranged around a concave body of a bathtub for purposes of heating water within the tub (see DE20108037U1 by Kluge). However, the prior art of record does not teach a ventilation pipeline spirally arranged around a concave part. The pipeline taught by Kluge is intended to convey liquid and not air. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had obvious motivation based on the present record to modify the bathtub assembly taught by Situ to have the claimed pipeline. Situ contemplates a space along the concave part of convey air and perform the function of heating water within the tub, and no rationale has been identified to render obvious a modification to make the ventilation space a spirally arranged pipeline. Situ teaches that its outlet 5 blows air into a room and not specifically to a ground surface. However, Lin et al. (CN109612094A) teaches a bathtub assembly with a blower to blow air along a floor; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an air outlet to blow air to a ground surface based on teachings of Lin. Situ also does not teach a drawable blowing mechanism. The claimed mechanism is interpreted such that it communicates air from the ventilation pipeline and conveys it out of a blowing means, the mechanism being drawable relative to the ventilation pipeline. Yun et al. (KR20110004721A) teaches a bathing assembly with a drawable blowing mechanism 70 (fig. 2). However, Yun teaches that its mechanism delivers hot air and water, and it also is not drawn relative to a ventilation pipeline (see fig. 2, note the blowing mechanism 70 is drawn along with the ventilation pipeline from fan 60, the pipeline having a weight 71). Nothing in the present record provides sufficient obvious rationale to have the claimed drawable blowing mechanism in the assembly taught by Situ, in particular a mechanism for blowing air and the relative movement of the mechanism to a ventilation pipeline. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm. 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 Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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. /SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601096
LAUNDRY WASHING MACHINE COLOR COMPOSITION ANALYSIS DURING LOADING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595608
WASHING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593955
DISHWASHER DRYING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595616
WASHING MACHINE APPLIANCE AND STEAM-GENERATING FEATURES FOR THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589718
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR APPLYING A CLEANING LIQUID TO A VEHICLE PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
64%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 648 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