Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/533,271

LAUNDRY APPLIANCE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
KO, JASON Y
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Whirlpool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
806 granted / 1073 resolved
+10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1094
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1073 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (KR 10-0608259). Re Claims 1 and 17-18, LEE et al. teaches a laundry appliance, comprising: a cabinet having a front panel (where 12 is), the front panel defining a front opening; a tub 20 positioned within the cabinet, wherein the tub defines an access opening; and a bellows assembly 40 coupled to the front panel along the front opening and the tub along the access opening, wherein the bellows assembly defines a first fold and second fold in an opposing direction (left and right( to form a sinusoidal shape (see where 40 and 21 point to, Fig. 1) between the front panel and the tub at each of 12 o’clock (where 40 points to) and a 6 o’clock position (where 21 points to generally). Re Claims 6-7 and 17-18, the bellows is S-shaped and forms an overall downward slope (from right to left) to form a watershed feature. Re Claim 20, the cabinet receiving edge is vertically higher than the tub-receiving edge at a 12 o’clock position and at a 6 o’clock position of the bellows assembly. Based on the tub lean the cabinet receiving edge (right side) is vertically higher. 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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (KR 10-0608259). LEE et al. is relied upon as applied to the claims above. Claims 2 and 19 are further directed toward the at least one of the sinusoidal shape and the oblique sinusoidal shape at each of a 3 o’clock position and a 9 o’clock positing of the bellows assembly, which it is unclear whether LEE et al. teaches. However, it would have been obvious to provide a bellows either at these positions, as a matter of duplication of parts or continuously around the tub to seal it so that the bellows accomplish their intended and expected function of sealing. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-16 are allowed. Claims 3-5 and 8-10 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. These claims are considered allowable because the bellows position and shape (at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock) or oblique cylinder defining a downward angle (claim 11) are not taught or made obvious to modify the base reference (a conventional front-load washing machine) , as it is for a sliding door bellows arrangement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00. 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 571-270-1414. 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. JASON Y. KO Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601095
LAUNDRY TREATING APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600322
CLEANER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602951
APPLIANCE HAVING A CUSTOMIZABLE USER PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588684
Sealed, Self-Cleaning, Food Dispensing System with Variable Overrun Control
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584262
DISPENSER ASSEMBLY FOR A LAUNDRY TREATMENT APPLIANCE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+16.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1073 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