Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/488,757

BATHTUB LINER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 836 resolved
-12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 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 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(s) 1, 2, 5. 6. 8. 9. 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiveash (US Patent 4,602,393) in view of Yandell (US Patent Publication 20050166311). Regarding Claim 1, Fiveash shows a bathtub liner (13) for covering an inner surface of a bathtub (Fig.2), the bathtub liner comprises: a cushioning layer (column 3 lines 20-26; between 27 and 28); an upper layer (27); and a bottom layer (28), wherein the cushioning layer is sandwiched between the upper layer and the bottom layer (Fig.3), edge portions (19) of the upper layer and the bottom layer are sealably bonded together encasing the cushioning layer (column 3 lines 20-30). Wherein the bathtub liner is for covering an inner surface of a bathtub (column 2 lines 25-30; Fig.1 & 2), provides a buffer (column lines 20-27) against the chipped or cracked inner surface of the bathtub, and the bathtub liner further includes a drain hole (20; column 2 lines 52). Fiveash fails to show the liner having the top layer is transparent and slip resistant and the bottom layer being cut resistant. Yandell teaches a spa shell having top layer (102) is transparent and slip resistant (paragraph 5). The bottom layer (104) is cut resistant (paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a transparent and slip resistant layer to ensure the liner was aesthetically pleasing. Regarding Claim 8, Fiveash shows a method for lining an inner of a bathtub, the method comprises providing a bathtub liner (13) comprising: a cushioning layer (column 3 lines 20-26; between 27 and 28), an upper layer (27), and a bottom layer (28), wherein the cushioning layer is sandwiched between the upper layer and the bottom layer (column 3 lines 20-26), edge portions (19) of the upper layer and the bottom layer are sealably bonded together encasing the cushioning layer (column 3 lines 20-26); and lining the bathtub (10) with the bathtub liner (Fig.2). Regarding Claim 11, Fiveash shows the bathtub liner according to claim 8, but fails to show the bottom layer is cut resistant and the top layer is transparent and slip resistant. Yandell teaches a spa shell having top layer (102) is transparent and slip resistant (paragraph 5). The bottom layer (104) is cut resistant (paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a transparent and slip resistant top layer and a cut resistant bottom layer to provide an aesthetically pleasing tub. Regarding claims 2, 5-6, Fiveash show the bathtub liner according to claim 1, but fails to show a heat bonded layers and the cushioning layer is covered by fabric and designs. Yandell teaches a spa shell. The shell includes the edge portions of the upper layer and the bottom layer are heat bonded (paragraph 17). The cushioning layer (104) is covered by fabric (130; fiberglass; paragraphs 14 & 17). Wherein designs are disposed over a surface of the fabric, and wherein the designs are visible through the upper layer (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include heat bonded edges and a transparent and fabric layer in order to ensure the liner was waterproof and aesthetically pleasing. Regarding claims 9 and 12-13 Fiveash shows the method according to claim 8, fails to show a heat bonded layers, the upper layer is covered by fabric and the designs are visible through the upper layer. Yandell teaches a spa shell wherein the edge portions of the upper layer and the bottom layer are heat bonded (paragraph 17). The cushioning layer is covered by fabric (130; fiberglass paragraph 14). Wherein designs are disposed over a surface of the fabric, and wherein the designs are visible through the upper layer (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of heat bonding the edges and a transparent and fabric layer in order to ensure the liner was waterproof and aesthetically pleasing. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fiveash and Yandell cannot be combined because Yanedell relates to rigid spa shells and not removable bathtub liners. The examiner disagrees. Fiveash is directed toward a flexible bathtub liner. Yandell teaches a multilayer bathtub and therefore are analogous art because they both pertain to bathtub. Applicant argues that Yandell does not disclose fabric covered cushioning layer with visible designs. The examiner disagrees. Fiveash teaches a cushioning layer. Yandell teaches designs that can be seen through the transparent layer (paragraph 17). The designs are coated on the substrate which can be made of a fabric of fiberglass (paragraph 14). The combination teaches the claimed limitans. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zuravksky et al (US Patent 20140026314) teaches a bathtub liner made of fabric. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm. 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 Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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. /LAUREN A CRANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599269
TILEABLE RECEPTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595649
FLUIDICS DEVICES FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596390
TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENT METHOD FOR AN INTELLIGENT TOILET, AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, A STORAGE MEDIUM, AND AN INTELLIGENT TOILET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590448
CONTROL SYSTEM AND A CONTROL METHOD OF INTELLIGENT TOILETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584301
LAVATORY CARRIER ASSEMBLY WITH WASTE LINE ACCESS PORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
57%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 836 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