Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/265,992

Toilet Plunger with Disposable Sheathing

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Examiner
ROS, NICHOLAS A
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
271 granted / 518 resolved
-17.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
556
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 518 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. , filed 12/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art KR 102094759 (Lee) which teaches a plunger with a flexible cup comprising an inward protrusion which forms an outwardly facing socket for a plunger handle. 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: Wall defining the second socket which is not the second socket sidewall (44) Applicant has amended claim 1 to claim a second socket sidewall defines the socket which is identified as 44 in the disclosure. As such the claim further introducing another ‘wall forming said second socket’ requires said additional wall being defined/identified 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. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,890,524 (Law) in view of KR 102094759 (Lee). Regarding claim 1, Law discloses a plunger device comprising: a first portion (100/104), said first portion having a flexible cup (104), said flexible cup having a sidewall (Figs. 1,2,4); wherein a top of said sidewall configured to selectively secure a proximal end of a plunger handle (102) (Figs. 1,5; C3 L23-28); wherein a bottom of said sidewall having a perimeter edge (106); an inner cavity (204) of said sidewall; said inner cavity being concave (Fig. 2); wherein said inner cavity having a second socket (202); and wherein a second socket sidewall and an additional wall (socket surrounding wall and covering wall 402) define and form said second socket with said walls oriented centrally and at the top of the flexible cup. While Law discloses that a plunger handle can be removably coupled to the top of the flexible cup it doesn’t explicitly state that the connection utilizes a first socket and while the second socket is at a center of the inner surface of the plunger cup it does not disclose if the second socket protrudes into the inner cavity. Although Law discloses that the bottom of the sidewall has a perimeter edge for engaging a toilet surface it does not discuss the structure of the edge such as if it is formed as a flange. Lee teaches a plunger device comprising a flexible cup (1) having a sidewall (100) wherein at a top of said sidewall a first socket (162) is formed for receiving a plunger handle (20). Lee further teaches that an inner cavity of the flexible cup comprises an inwardly protruding cylinder (164) at a center of the top of the inner surface of the flexible cup (Fig. 2-3) which facilitates a deeper insertion of the handle for a more stable plunging action. Lee further teaches that the bottom of the sidewall is provided with a flange (180) to improve the sealing performance of the plunger during use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first socket at a top of the flexible cup sidewall, as taught by Lee, to facilitate installation and removal of a plunger handle during manufacturing or by a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flange at the bottom end of the flexible cup sidewall, as taught by Lee, to facilitate the plunger forming a stronger/more secure seal with the plumbing fixture during use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the center of the inner surface of the flexible cup to protrude into the inner cavity, as taught by Lee, to provide a more stable handle coupling and plunging motion during use. As Law disclosed the formation of the second socket at a center of the inner surface of the flexible cup directly below the handle attachment point the modification would result in the second socket and its defining walls protruding into the inner cavity. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,927,321 (Marland). Regarding claim 2, Law states the inclusion of a second portion (110) comprising a first end (Closed end of the bag; C3 L64-C4L11) and a second end (404) comprising an edge (404) with a flexible skirt (406/408) separating said first end and said second end (Fig. 4). Law further states that the first end of the second portion is configured to be inserted into and retained in the second socket (C3 L64-C4 L11; C5 L25-34, 40-63). Law, however, does not state that the first end which is retained in the second socket is ‘stiff’. Marland teaches a portable toilet device comprising a flexible bag (210) removably attachable to the remainder of the device/a support structure (108/110). Marland teaches that the bag can be attached in a variety of ways including capturing part of the bag with a strap, providing a hook for the bag, knotting the bag around the support structure or forming a knot in the bag (forming a ‘stiffened’ end) and temporarily lodging the knotted portion of the bag into a receptacle of the support structure (C6 L13-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stiffen the first end (such as the taught knotted portion) on the second portion (cover/bag), as taught by Marland, to help a user locate and position the first end into the second socket and/or to provide a more secure connection (providing a larger/stiffer structure to be secured by the flaps/slots of Law). Regarding claim 8, Law states that the second socket is oriented immediately below the plunger handle and opens into the inner cavity of the flexible cup (C5 L21-28). Law in view of Lee teaches the formation of the first socket at the center top of the flexible cup and opening outwardly above the top of the cup as previously discussed. As such the teachings of Law in view of Lee and Marland would result in the second socket being oriented immediately below the first socket. Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Lee and Marland as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 10,413,139 (Singer) Regarding claim 3, Law states that said first end is configured to be removably housed within said second socket; and wherein said edge is configured to be stretched over an inner and an outer surface of said sidewall such that said skirt covers said outer surface of said flexible cup (C3 L64-C4 L11; C5 L25-34, 40-63). Law further states that the second portion can be secured to the plunger handle (102/112; C4 L8-11, C6 L23-27) but does not explicitly state if the second portion is sized such that it is configured to cover the sidewall of the first portion and a majority of a plunger handle. Singer teaches a plunger device comprising a first portion (20) having a flexible cup (22) connected to a plunger handle (21) and a second portion (10) comprising a stiff first end (14/16) and an open second end (13) connected by a flexible skirt (12). The second portion configured such that the stiff first end couples to a connection point on an upper inner part of the flexible cup (24/34; Fig. 4) and the skirt pulled around such that the flexible cup and sufficiently far up the handle to protect it from fluid during use (Fig. 6; C4 L13-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second portion to have a sufficient size/length to cover the flexible cup and continue extending up a majority of a plunger handle, as evidenced by Singer, to ensure the full plunger structure being utilized/exposed to the clog/fixture is covered/protected by the second portion (cover/bag) during use. Regarding claim 4, Law in view of Lee, Marland and Singer teaches stiffening the first end of the second portion by forming a knot in the material as previously discussed (Marland C6 L13-26). Law further states that an opening (208) of said second socket (202) is comprised of a plurality of converging flexible flaps (Fig. 4 – cover 402 is split into flaps by slots 206) configured to retain said first edge of said second portion therein (C3 L64-C4 L11; C5 L25-34, 40-63). Regarding claim 5, Law states that the second portion is configured to be retained within the second socket, to cover the interior and exterior of the flexible cup and to remain in place while the plunger is being used (C3 L64-C4 L11; C5 L25-34, 40-63). Regarding claim 6, Law states that the second portion is configured to be retained within the second socket, to cover the interior and exterior of the flexible cup and to remain in place while the plunger is being used (C3 L64-C4 L11; C5 L25-34, 40-63). Regarding claim 7, Law states that the said second portion is configured to be detached from said cup using a single tug motion or a downward lunge of said plunger device (C3L64-C4L11; C5L25-34,40-63 - Second portion is friction fit within slots 206 so is configured to be pulled out with a single tug motion; C4 L25-30 – other coupling/release arrangements). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,336,604 (Lacey) teaches a plunger device comprising a flexible cup with a first outwardly facing socket formed at a center of the top of the cup and wherein the first socket extends downward forming an inward central protrusion into the interior of the flexible cup and wherein the flexible cup comprises a flange. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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. /NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754 /DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 26, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582268
NESTABLE AND DRAINABLE SHOWER NICHE INSERT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571196
VACUUM TOILET AND TANK THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551066
SANITARY WASHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546132
Swimming Pool Tile Water Wash System To Prevent The Formation Of Calcium Silicate Deposit On Glass Or Porcelain Tile
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12540688
FLUSH VALVE POSITION DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+33.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 518 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month