Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/652,493

LAUNDRY ACCESSORY FOR DISPENSING LAUNDRY CHEMICALS AND DETERGENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Yky Group Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
671 granted / 921 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
955
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 921 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
9DETAILED 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 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 1-4, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US PN 5,752,661). Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a laundry accessory (sprayer 10 is capable of holding laundry detergent along with other liquids that are sprayable, column 1, lines 15-18), comprising: a hand truck (figure 1) defining a two wheeled dolly device (wheels 44, handle 84, side bars 90, base 34, figure 1), the hand truck further comprising a frame comprising laterally spaced longitudinally extending side rails (items 88, 90, figure 1), said frame further comprising a crossbar (item 86, figure 1) defining a head end (figure 1) and a base defining a base end (item bottle panel 34, figure 1); a storage unit (items 12, 74, figures 1 and 2) coupled to and extending laterally between the side rails, wherein the storage unit is located between the head and base ends; a hose (item 64, figure 1) configured to be coupled to a container (item 12, figure 1) at a first end proximate to the base (tubing 64 is connected to bottom of container 12 via sump 28 and pump fitting 60, figure 1); and a spray nozzle (item 50, figure 1) coupled to a second end of the hose proximate the crossbar defining the head end (figure 1). Regarding claim 2, Lewis discloses that the side rails are fixed side rails (side rails 88 and 90 are fixed to sleeves 92 and 94, figure 1). Regarding claim 3, Lewis discloses that the side rails are longitudinally telescoping side rails (rails 88 and 90 are slidably arranged in collars 96 and 98 which also limit downward and upward movement of handle 84, see figures 1 and 6 for retracted and extended position of handle 84). Regarding claim 4, Lewis discloses that the crossbar defining the head end and base defining the base end are substantially perpendicular to the side rails (figures 1 and 2). Regarding claim 8, Lewis discloses that the storage unit defines a cavity (bottom space defined by cover 74, figures 2 and 5), wherein the cavity is configured to store the hose (see figures 2 and 5 where tubing 64 is capable of being stored and taken out through side slot in wall 78 of cover 74). Regarding claim 9, Lewis discloses that the storage unit defines at least one channel (see side slot in wall 78, figure 5) configured to allow the hose to traverse therethrough. Regarding claim 13, Lewis discloses a panel (panel 34 and side panels of supports 94, figure 1) coupled to the frame and retaining the container within the hand truck. 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. Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis. Regarding claims 5-7, Lewis teaches the siderails, hand truck details, and the base end but is silent to the width between the longitudinally extending side rails being 2 feet, the height of the hand truck is 3 feet, and the width of the base end of the hand truck is 2 feet. However, the drawings and the disclosure of Lewis clearly point to the assembly having significant dimensions which may be a few feet as present in commonly available configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the device of Lewis such that the width between the side rails is 2 feet, the height of hand truck is 3 feet and the width of the base end is 2 feet. Doing is an obvious matter of design choice and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form a hand truck sprayer device with any suitable and user-friendly dimensions as required. Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches a motor (item 52, figure 1) and a pump assembly (item P, figure 1) to move the liquid from the container to a tubing under pressure where the pump is driven by the motor. However, Lewis is silent to the pump being a vacuum pump. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a motor driven pump, a vacuum pump, or any other similar pump device in the invention of Lewis to move the liquid from the storage container to the spray hose since doing so is old and well-known in the art. Furthermore, applicant has not provided any reason or criticality for choosing a vacuum pump and thus any suitable pump including a vacuum pump will equally work as intended to carry out the application of the invention. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Hikem et al. (“Hikem” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2021/0032091). Regarding claims 11 and 12, Lewis does not explicitly teach a programmable user interface electrically coupled to the vacuum pump, wherein the user interface is configured to control a flow of laundry chemicals from the container to a washing machine and further configured to optimize an amount of laundry chemical to be used based on the size of a load of laundry, the material and color of the laundry, and/or the heat to be used during a wash cycle. Hikem teaches another laundry liquid dispensing apparatus (item 100, figure 1) comprising programmable user interface (item 734, figure 7C, paragraphs [0088], [0127-0129] ) and a control system (item 700, figures 7A) that can perform various tasks based on various parameters to dispense a laundry liquid when desired by controlling the operation of a pump (item 126, figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lewis as taught by Hikem to provide a programmable user interface with a control system that can control the dispensing operation by controlling the pump operating parameters which could include laundry type, amount of laundry liquid, color of laundry, etc. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Sivells et al. (“Sivells” hereinafter) (US PN 6,279,838). Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lewis does not explicitly teach a clip for retaining the spray nozzle, the clip coupled to the frame at the crossbar defining the head end of the hand truck, and the spray nozzle includes a pistol grip trigger configured to control a flow of material through the spray nozzle. Sivells teaches another sprayer dolly (item 1, figure 1) comprising a spray nozzle (item 46, figure 3) with a pistol grip trigger (item 47, figure 3) that controls the flow material through the spray nozzle and a clip (nozzle 46 attachment mechanism, figure 3) attached to a frame (item 40, figures 2 and 3) of the sprayer dolly at a top end to store the spray nozzle when not in use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lewis as taught by Sivells to have provided a pistol trigger sprayer nozzle and a clip to store the spray nozzle on the hand truck frame in order to provide easy storage mechanism and also a user-friendly dispensing mechanism such that a user can control the flow using the trigger. Such sprayers and storage mechanisms are common in the art as shown in the cited arts with this office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents disclose subject matter related to sprayers and dispensers mounted on a rolling vehicle assembly and/or wearable by a user: US PN 1,657,217, US PN 3,248,020, US PN 3,680,786, US PN 4,362,307, US PN 4,524,912, US PN 5,061,123, US PN 7,007,826, US PN 7,556,210, US PN 7,905,428, US PN 8,141,754, US PG PUB 2015/0283570, US PG PUB 2018/0154386, US PN 10,207,728, and US PN 10,864,538. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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. /Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599270
PORTABLE PERSONAL HAND SANITIZER DISPENSER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593942
DEFORMABLE PLASTIC VESSEL AND SYSTEM FOR REDUCING PLASTIC WASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589401
DISPENSER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589936
SYSTEM FOR DISPENSING A FLUID SUBSTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583005
DOSING DEVICE, CONTAINER, PRODUCT DISPENSER AND SYSTEM
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
73%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+25.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 921 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