Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/488,941

Cleaning Device

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
JENNINGS, MICHAEL DEANGILO
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
840 granted / 1081 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1117
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 1. 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. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Patent Publication (202017004575) to Rosin. Regarding independent claim 1, Rosin discloses a. a body (1) formed from a compressible material (sponge; see attached English translation), b. the body (1) including an upper section (See annotated FIG. one on the next page), a lower section (See annotated FIG. one on the next page), and a perimeter surface (See numeral 2) extending from the upper section (See annotated FIG. one on the next page) into the lower section (See annotated FIG. one on the next page); c. the lower section (See annotated FIG. one on the next page) includes a first jaw (See annotated figure showing left jaw) and a second jaw (See annotated figure showing right jaw); and d. the upper section includes a plurality of slots (See annotated FIG. showing slots one on the next page) extending from the perimeter surface into the first jaw and the second jaw (See annotated figure showing right jaw). PNG media_image1.png 529 635 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Rosin discloses that the body (1) is generally oval shaped (See annotated FIG. above). Regarding claim 3, Rosin discloses that the first jaw (See left jaw annotated FIG. above) and the second jaw (See annotated right FIG. above) extend at an angle from each other from an intersection (See line at 2) in the upper section into the lower section. Regarding claim 6, Rosin discloses that (See left jaw annotated FIG. above) and the second jaw (See annotated right FIG. above) include lower end flat surfaces (See annotated FIG. above) for resting on a counter. Regarding claim 7, Rosin discloses that the perimeter surface (See outer contour of surface in FIG. 1) includes rounded outside edges. Regarding claim 8, Rosin discloses that the body (1) is integral (See FIG. 1). Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103 2. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (7,124,465) to Kaminstein in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0034122) to Mottola et al. Regarding independent claim 1, Kaminstein teaches a. a body (10) formed from a compressible material (See Col. 2 lines 60-65 and FIG. 3), b. the body (10) including an upper section (24), a lower section (14), and a perimeter surface (12) extending from the upper section (24) into the lower section (14); c. the lower section (14) includes a first jaw (13) and a second jaw (15) (See Col. 3 lines 1-15 and FIG. 3); and Except, Kaminstein is silent regarding that the upper section (24) includes a plurality of slots extending from the perimeter surface into the first jaw and the second jaw. However, Mottola et al. teaches a cleaning device (100) having a body (105). The body (105) is an absorbent body and includes in the upper section a plurality of slots (110a, 110b). Mottola et al. teaches that the slots (110a, 110b) offers the ability to clean devices or utensils (See paragraph [0020] of Mottola et al. and FIG. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Kaminstein with Mottola et al. to include slots (110a, 110b) in the upper section (24) in order to provide the ability to clean devices or utensils. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication (202017004575) to Rosin. Regarding claim 4, Rosin is silent regarding that the angle is in a range from 35 degrees to 45 degrees. However, absent criticality in the specification this 10 degree range would have been obvious to modify the angle in Rosin to be at least 35 degrees would have been obvious to try since such modification in order to adjust the sponge for various surfaces. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication (202017004575) to Rosin in view of U.S. Patent (8,001,645) to Kaufman et al. Regarding claim 5, Rosin is silent regarding the compressible material is a polyurethane foam. However, Kaufman et al. teaches a cleaning tool (10) for medical devices. The cleaning tool includes a sponge (14) that is made of polymeric material such as polyurethane foam. Kaufman et al. teaches that the sponge (14) is useful in cleaning and disinfecting. Since Rosin teaches a sponge for cleaning, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Rosin with Kaufman et al. to include the sponge (1) made for polyurethane foam since such is useful for cleaning and disinfecting. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication (202017004575) to Rosin in view of WIPO Patent Publication (2019/092556) to Ichikawa et al. Regarding claim 9, Rosin is silent regarding that the first slot and the second slot are surface treated with one of silicone or vinyl. However, Ichikawa et al. teaches a cleaning pad (2) that is used for cleaning surfaces. Ichikawa et al. teaches that a preferred fibers for cleaning is vinyl (See page 2 lines 5-15 of Ichikawa et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Rosin with Ichikawa et al. to include a vinly as an effective cleaning tool. Conclusion 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. 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. MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601106
WIPING SHEET AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING WIPING SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588751
VEHICLE WASHING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590468
POOL RELATED PLATFORM AND ADDED-ON ACCESSORIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582275
CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569103
WET ROBOT CLEANER AND CONTAMINATION PREVENTION MODULE USED THEREFOR
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
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 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