Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/801,567

OVER-THE-SINK DRYING ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Examiner
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dorai Home Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
215 granted / 746 resolved
-36.2% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
813
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 746 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered. 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. Claims 1 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0245845 to Klug in view of USDP D924,515 to Levi, USDP D773,142 to Green and QVC Total Rack 6-in-1 Multi-Function Expandable Kitchen Rack Webpage and You Tube Video (hereinafter referred to as QVC). Claims 1, 6, 7 and 17, Klug discloses a drying implement, comprising: a first panel that comprises a diatomaceous earth slab and a resilient slab covering, the resilient slab covering comprising a mesh of openings that allow water from an article placed on the resilient slab covering to drip through the mesh of openings, onto the diatomaceous earth slab (see entire document including [0007]-[0013], [0035], [0045] and the Figures). Klug does not appear to mention coupling the first panel with a second panel wherein the second panel comprises a plurality of cross pieces that are coated/overmolded with a resilient second covering, but Klug does disclose that the first panel may be placed on a countertop adjacent a sink (Figure 2). Levi and QVC each disclose an over-the-sink rack comprising a plurality of end coated/overmolded cross pieces (see entire documents including the Figures) and Green discloses that it is known in the art to combine a drying mat and rack (see entire document including the title and Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to couple the countertop drying mat of Klug and the over-the-sink rack of Levi and/or QVC to provide a unitary product with the benefits of both a drying mat and sink rack. Claims 4 and 5, QVC discloses that the plurality of cross pieces comprise stainless steel (item description and video). Claims 7 and 17, Levi and QVC each teach that the rack is configured to facilitate rolling and unrolling (Figures of Levi and QVC and item description of QVC). Claim 8, the resilient slab covering is configured to at least partially and removably encase the diatomaceous earth slab; and has a top surface, side edges and at least one of a bottom lip, a pocket or a strap; and wherein the at least one of the bottom lip, the pocket or the strap is configured to secure the resilient slab covering to the diatomaceous earth slab ([0007]-[0013]). Claim 9, the top surface comprises a mesh of ribs that form a plurality of apertures that are configured to allow liquid to drain from an object disposed on the resilient slab covering, through the apertures, to the diatomaceous earth slab ([0007]-[0013]). Claim 10, Klug does not appear to mention the specific mesh opening size but does disclose that the size of the voids can be selected to allow moisture to drip onto the absorptive layer [0500]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the openings with any suitable size, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an opening size on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. Claims 11 and 12, the resilient slab covering of Klug is made of silicone [0009] and the resilient second covering of QVC is also made of silicone (item description and video). Claims 13 and 14, Klug discloses that the molded silicone material may have a durometer of about 45 [0009]. Claims 15-17, the cross pieces of Levi have a rectangular cross-sectional profile (Figures). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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 T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 07, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582200
Novel Weaving Shoe Uppers with Elastic Strings
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577442
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION, RUBBER-ORGANIC FIBER CORD COMPOSITE, AND TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12506286
SHEET TYPE CONDUCTIVE MEMBER, CONNECTOR, GARMENT, AND CONNECTOR MOUNTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12480253
INFUSION OF FORMULATED AND TREATED SILICONE INTO SILK FABRIC TO CREATE STRUCTURE AND DECORATIVE DESIGN
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12465891
DIALYSER, DIALYSIS EQUIPMENT AND KIT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A DIALYSER
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
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
29%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+28.0%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 746 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