Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/028,209

CLEANING SUPPORT DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Examiner
WUJCIAK, ALFRED J
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
869 granted / 1167 resolved
+22.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1196
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1167 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This is the first Office Action for the serial number 18/028,209, CLEANING SUPPORT DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE, filed on 3/23/23. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of group III in the reply filed on 9/26/025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claim 15 and claims 16-20 included all of the limitations from claim 1 and the restriction should be withdrawn. This is not found persuasive because group I and group II are apparatus claims while group III is a method claim. Apparatus and method are two different inventions therefore, the restriction is still proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,162,272 to Trott in view of US Patent # 9,664,331 to Caputa. Trott teaches a support device (figure 1) for locating proximal to a tilt-in window (11 and 12), deploying the support device into an open configuration (legs 1 and 2 are being spread apart in figure 1), locking (locking bolt, column 4, lines 58-61) one leg of the support device in the open configuration and opening the tilt-in window, resting a component of the tilt-window on a base component (9 and 10) of the support device. A second tilt-in window (12) and resting a component (10) of the second tilt-in window on the support device. Trott teaches all of the limitations above but fails to teach the use of elements in method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified steps for installing the elements in method to prevent from damaging the windows when not using the support device properly. Trott teaches the base component but fails to teach the base component comprising a cushion feature. Caputa teaches the cushion feature (32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the cushion feature to Trott’s base component as taught by Caputa to reduce damaging the window when resting on the base component. Regarding claim 20, Trott teaches the first and second tilt-in windows but fails to teach the second tilt-in window rests on the first tilt-in window. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second tilt-in window to rest on the first tilt-in window to provide designer’s preference for the placement of the second tilt-in window on the first tilt-in window. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,162,272 to Trott in view of Caputa and in further view of US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0166928 to Johnson. Trott teaches the support device but fails to teach the support device includes at least one cleaning material holding feature and waste material receptacle feature comprising a bag. Johnson teaches the cleaning material holding feature (47) and waste material receptacle feature (52 and 60) comprising a bag (60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the at least one cleaning material holding feature and waste material receptacle feature to Trott’s support device as taught by Johnson to organize and holding other equipment for easy access and use (section 003 in Johnson’s invention). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,162,272 to Trott in view of Caputa and in further view of US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0166928 to Johnson. Trott teaches the support device but fails to teach the support device includes at least one cleaning material holding feature. Johnson teaches the cleaning material holding feature (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the at least one cleaning material holding feature to Trott’s support device as taught by Johnson to organize and holding other equipment for easy access and use (section 003 in Johnson’s invention). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,162,272 to Trott in view of Caputa, Johnson and in further view of US Patent # 8,590,462 to Dyson. Trott teaches the support device but fails to teach the support device includes a supply retention feature. Johnson teaches the supply retention feature (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the supply retention feature to Trott’s support device as taught by Johnson to organize and holding other equipment for easy access and use (section 003 in Jonhson’s invention). Trott in view of Caputa and Johnson teaches the supply retention feature but fails to teach the supply retention includes a net feature. Dyson teaches the net feature (106, 106A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the net feature to Trott in view of Caputa and Johnson’s supply retention feature as taught by Dyson to allow a variety size of object to be secured therein. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent # 5,927,664 to Schmidt US Patent Application Publication # 2010/0096529 to Kritsky US Patent # 9,599,278 to Ruckman The cited references above teach the support device for supporting the tilt-in windows. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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. ALFRED J. WUJCIAK Examiner Art Unit 3632 /ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 1/7/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601191
PROP-BRACE COUPLER FOR CONSTRUCTION PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587132
PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE CLAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571342
Engine-Generator Set
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571497
MOUNTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571495
DISPLAY MOUNTING SUPPORT
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
74%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1167 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