Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/921,946

AGITATOR FOR A SURFACE TREATMENT APPARATUS AND A SURFACE TREATMENT APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Priority
Oct 18, 2019 — CIP of 11/759,069 +5 more
Examiner
BOCHNA, DAVID
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sharkninja Operating LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
1461 granted / 1829 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1829 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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Related Applications” section of the specification should include the patent numbers of the related applications. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai 7,712,183 in view of Favagrossa 2008/0010769. In regard to claim 1, Nakai et al. discloses an agitator 25 for a vacuum cleaner comprising: an agitator body 25 having a first end region and a second end region; and a first resiliently deformable flap 29 extending outwardly from the agitator body between the first end region and the second end region, the first resiliently deformable flap including: a first front facing layer including a fabric (portion 29); and a first rear facing layer (base t-portion of 29); a second resiliently deformable flap 29 extending outwardly from the agitator body between the first end region and the second end region, the second resiliently deformable flap including: a second front facing layer including a fabric (portion 29); and a second rear facing layer (base t-portion of 29); and one or more rows of a bristle strip 28 and/or a plurality of tufts extending outwardly from the agitator body 25 between the first end region and the second end region, the one or more rows extending generally parallel to the first resiliently deformable flap 29 and the second resiliently deformable flap 29, wherein the one or more rows 28 is disposed behind the first resiliently deformable flap and in front of the second resiliently deformable flap. Nakai et al. discloses portion 29 as being cloth, but it is unclear as to the exact material of the base portion of 29. Favagrossa teaches that it is common and well known in the art to make similar deformable flaps 1 from a cloth outer portion 8 (see paragraph 24) and an elastomer base 5 (see paragraph 22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the base portion of Nakai et al. from an elastomer rubber material, as taught by Favagrossa. In regard to claim 2, wherein the first resiliently deformable flap extends from the first end region to the second end region (the deformable flap extends the entire length of the agitator body). In regard to claim 3, wherein the second resiliently deformable flap extends from the first end region to the second end region (the deformable flap extends the entire length of the agitator body). In regard to claim 4, wherein the one or more rows extends from the first end region to the second end region (the bristles 28 extend the entire length of the agitator body). In regard to claim 5, wherein the elastomer of the first rear facing layer includes rubber (see paragraph 22 of Favagrossa). In regard to claim 8, wherein the first front facing layer and the first rear facing layer are co-molded together (this is considered a product by process limitation, that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. Nakai et al. in view of Favagrossa disclose all of the structural limitations of the claims and are therefore deemed to fully anticipate the apparatus claim. The manner in which the flap is manufactured is not deemed to change the positively recited structural limitations of the claim). In regard to claim 9, wherein the first front facing layer and the first rear facing layer are overmolded together (this is considered a product by process limitation, that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. Nakai et al. in view of Favagrossa disclose all of the structural limitations of the claims and are therefore deemed to fully anticipate the apparatus claim. The manner in which the flap is manufactured is not deemed to change the positively recited structural limitations of the claim). Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai 7,712,183 in view of Favagrossa 2008/0010769 and further in view of Ventress et al. 2014/0196236. In regard to claims 6 and 7, Nakai in view of Favagrossa disclose the agitator with a cloth flap, as described above, but does not specifically disclose the cloth as being polyester or woven fabric. Ventress et al. teaches that it is common and well known in the art to provide similar types of agitator bars with cloth flaps that are made from woven polymeric material such as polyester (see paragraph 30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cloth material of Favagrossa to include a woven polyester, as taught by Ventress et al. Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-188951 in view of Favagrossa 2008/0010769. In regard to claim 10, JP ‘951 discloses (fig. 9) an agitator for a vacuum cleaner comprising: an agitator body 63; and a resiliently deformable flap 44, 45 extending outwardly from the agitator body, the resiliently deformable flap including: a base 45 configured to be secured to the agitator body; a front face 44 defined by a facing layer; and a rear face 45 defined a backing layer, the backing layer; wherein the facing layer and the backing layer both form part of the base 64a. JP ‘951A discloses a flap as described above, but it is unclear as to the exact material of the front face 44 and the rear face base portion of 45. Favagrossa teaches that it is common and well known in the art to make similar deformable flaps 1 from a cloth outer portion 8 (see paragraph 24) and an elastomer rubber base 5 (see paragraph 22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the base portion of JP ‘951 from an elastomer rubber material and the front face portion 44 from cloth, as taught by Favagrossa. In regard to claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the base, front face, and rear face includes a generally T-shaped cross-section (see fig. 9). In regard to claim 12, wherein the base includes a front portion and extending generally away from the front face and a rear portion extending generally away from the rear face (the base is t-shaped). In regard to claim 13, wherein the backing layer 45 extends across both the front portion and the rear portion (portion 45 extends along a side and the bottom of the base). In regard to claims 14 and 15, wherein the facing layer 44 extends only the front portion of the Base (44 does not extend along the bottom of the base). In regard to claim 16, wherein front portion and the rear portion of the base extend in generally opposite directions from each other (one side of the T is 45 and the other side of the T is 44). In regard to claim 17, JP ‘951 discloses an agitator 63 for a vacuum cleaner comprising: an agitator body; and a resiliently deformable flap 44, 45 extending outwardly from the agitator body, the resiliently deformable flap including: a base 45 configured to be secured to the agitator body; a front face 44 extending radially outward from the base, the front face defined by a facing layer, and a rear face 45 extending radially outward from the base, the rear face defined a backing layer; wherein the facing layer 44 extends radially outward from the base further than the rear layer 45. JP ‘951A discloses a flap as described above, but it is unclear as to the exact material of the front face 44 and the rear face base portion of 45. Favagrossa teaches that it is common and well known in the art to make similar deformable flaps 1 from a cloth outer portion 8 (see paragraph 24) and an elastomer rubber base 5 (see paragraph 22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the base portion of JP ‘951 from an elastomer rubber material and the front face portion 44 from cloth, as taught by Favagrossa. In regard to claim 18, wherein a distal most end 44 of the facing layer defines a cleaning edge configured to contact a surface to be cleaned. In regard to claim 19, wherein the backing layer 45 does contact the surface to be cleaned. In regard to claim 20, wherein the cleaning edge 44 forms a selvedge. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ventress, Ando, Naftal, Zheng, Yamin, Glas and Li disclose similar couplings that are common and well known in the art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30. 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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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. /DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680632
FLEXIBLE TUBE ASSEMBLY
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12669207
QUICK-FIT CONNECTION ASSEMBLY
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12669196
AIRCRAFT AIR DUCT PIPE COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE PIPE COUPLING AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAID PIPE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668027
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF TUBE-ATTACHED COUPLING STRUCTURE AND TUBE-ATTACHED COUPLING STRUCTURE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12669202
CONNECTION DEVICE FOR CONNECTING TUBULAR COMPONENTS
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 6m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1829 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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