Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/681,798

CLEANING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Examiner
HORTON, ANDREW ALAN
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BEIJING ROBOROCK INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
604 granted / 750 resolved
+10.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
779
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 750 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fluid delivery pipeline” (claim 1, lines 2-3) and “control mechanism” (claim 1, line 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 115 (Fig. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control mechanism” in claim 1, line 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 9-10 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 9, lines 3-5 recites a filtering mesh “enclosed to form the filtering channel”. The meaning is unclear and it is unclear what element is enclosed and how the enclosing forms the channel. Claim 10, line 3 recites “a limiting portion matching the first chamber”. It is unclear how the portion is “matching” the first chamber based on structure. 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hekman (US 2015/0196182). As to claim 1, Hekman includes a cleaning device, comprising: a device body, comprising a first chamber (Located to the right of 128), a second chamber (Located to the left of 128), a fluid delivery pipeline (One of the pipe between 140 and 142, and the pipe between 142 and 148/150), and a control mechanism (198, 142; Controller 198 controls the operation of valve 142; para 47), wherein the first chamber is configured to accommodate a medium (secondary recovered liquid 128) to be treated, the second chamber is configured to accommodate a cleaning fluid (initial recovered liquid 124) [para 37], the fluid delivery pipeline is disposed outside the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), and the fluid delivery pipeline is connected to the first chamber or the second chamber through the control mechanism (The pipeline is connected to first chamber through 142); and a fluid discharging assembly, comprising a first filter assembly (140) and a fluid discharging pipe (The other of the pipe between 140 and 142, and the pipe between 142 and 148/150), wherein the first filter assembly is provided within the first chamber (140 is inside of the space rightward of 128) and disposed above a chamber bottom of the first chamber (140 extends above the chamber’s bottom), and one end of the fluid discharging pipe is in (fluid) communication with the first filter assembly, and the other end of the fluid discharging pipe is in (fluid) communication with the fluid delivery pipeline (Fig. 1). As to claim 2, further comprising: a second filter assembly (One of 122 and 148/150), provided outside the first chamber and (fluid) communicated with the fluid discharging pipe. As to claim 3, wherein a filter fineness of the first filter assembly (140) is greater than that of the second filter assembly (122) [para 36 and 38]. As to claim 6, wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are of a one-piece structure (The chambers are one piece as they are recovery tank 118; para 35) or a split structure. 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekman (US 2015/0196182) in view of Piwonka-Corle (US 2018/0221920). As to claim 7, Hekman does not include wherein the first filter assembly is detachably connected to the first chamber. Piwonka-Corle includes a cleaning device comprising a first filter assembly (120) detachably connected to the cleaning device (120 can be replaced; para 72). It would have been obvious to modify the first filter assembly to be detachably connected (thereby providing it as detachably connected to the first chamber), as taught by Piwonka-Corle, in order to permit the first filter assembly to be replaced when it is worn out. Claims 8-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekman (US 2015/0196182) in view of Boomgaarden (US 5,901,407). As to claim 8, Hekman does not include wherein the first filter assembly comprises: a filter body, provided with a filtering hole, a fluid discharging port, and a filtering channel configured to communicate the filtering hole and the fluid discharging port, wherein the fluid discharging port is in communication with the fluid discharging pipe; and a mounting rack, connected to the filter body and the first chamber and disposed above the chamber bottom of the first chamber. Boomgaarden includes a first filter assembly (36; Fig. 3 and 7) comprising: a filter body, provided with a filtering hole (A hole on the surface of 36, which is inherent), a fluid discharging port (The cylindrical right ribbed part of 36), and a filtering channel (The empty space inside of 36) configured to communicate the filtering hole and the fluid discharging port, wherein the fluid discharging port is in communication with the fluid discharging pipe; and a mounting rack (coupling 38), connected to the filter body and the first chamber and disposed above the chamber bottom of a first chamber (26). It would have been obvious to substitute the first filter assembly for one with a filter body, provided with a filtering hole, a fluid discharging port, and a filtering channel configured to communicate the filtering hole and the fluid discharging port, wherein the fluid discharging port is in communication with the fluid discharging pipe, and a mounting rack, connected to the filter body and the first chamber and disposed above the chamber bottom of the first chamber, as taught by Boomgaarden, in order to provide a filter structure alternative that is durable and long lasting due to its structural form. As to claim 9, Boomgaarden provides wherein the filter body comprises: a first plate (The left vertical ring-shaped section of 36) and a second plate (The right vertical ring-shaped section of 36) disposed opposite to each other, and a filtering mesh (shown in Fig. 4) disposed between the first plate and the second plate and enclosed to form the filtering channel, wherein the filtering mesh is provided with a plurality of filtering holes (Holes are on the surface of 36), and the fluid discharging port is provided on the second plate (Fig. 7). As to claim 10, wherein the mounting rack is connected to the second plate (Fig. 3); and the first plate is provided with a limiting portion (A piece of the first plate) matching (fits together with) the first chamber. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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. /ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589717
LIQUID LEVEL SENSING FOR WASHER FLUID RESEVOIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582222
Brush For Sonic Toothbrush With Longitudinal Axis Vibration
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575706
SEALING STRUCTURE AND SMART CLEANING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578700
SYSTEMS, METHODS AND FILE FORMAT FOR 3D PRINTING OF MICROSTRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569055
ORAL HYGIENE DEVICE
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
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 750 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