Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/275,662

VACUUM TABLE FOR CLOTHES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 03, 2023
Examiner
KREILING, AMANDA J
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
381 granted / 455 resolved
+13.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
468
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 455 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 1-10 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 1: In line 3, the claim recites “the upper part of the support base”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. The examiner suggests amending line 2 to read “a plurality of supports forming a support base” and amending line 3 to read “an upper part of the support base”. Claim 1: In lines 4-5, the claim recites “the lower part thereof”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. Should this be “a lower part thereof”? Claim 1: In lines 12-13, the claim recites “the upper part of the foot plate”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. Should this be “an upper part of the foot plate”? Claim 2: In line 4, the claim recites “the upper part of the clamp”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. Should this be “an upper part of the clamp?”. Claim 6: In line 7, the claim recites “the first mount base”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Should this be “a first mount base”? Claim 6: In line 8, the claim recites “the protruding second mount base”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Should this be “a protruding second mount base”? Claim 10: In line 3, the claim recites “the upper end part of the vacuum suction device”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Should this be “an upper end part of the vacuum suction device”? 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(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR2018073741A; English translation relied upon for reference herein) in view of Lee (KR200182435Y1; English translation relied upon for reference herein) and Ryu (KR102307604; English translation relied upon for reference herein). Claim 1: An provides a table comprising a plurality of support bases (Fig. 1) which is mounted vertically, an upper plate part (100) which is mounted on the upper part of the support base (Fig. 1), and height adjusting means (200) which are respectively mounted on both sides of the support base (Fig. 1) to adjust the height of the upper plate (100) by the operation of a cylinder (250,260; paragraphs [0020-0027]) but fails to disclose the table has a vacuum suction hole formed at the lower part thereof, a vacuum suction device which is mounted at a lower part of the upper plate part and generates suction pressure in the upper plate part by a motor, a foot plate which is mounted on a mounting rod in the form of horizontally connecting the support base and opens and closes a damper of the vacuum suction device to control the suction propriety of the upper plate part, a position fixing means which is mounted on one side of the foot plate to fix the position of the foot plate in the form of supporting the upper part of the foot plate. However, Lee teaches a table has an upper plate part (12), a vacuum suction hole (6) formed at the lower part thereof, a vacuum suction device (6) which is mounted at a lower part of the upper plate part and generates suction pressure in the upper plate part by a motor (20), a foot plate (26) mounted a the front lower end of the support base (Fig. 1, abstract) and opens and closes a damper (24) of the vacuum suction device to control the suction propriety of the upper plate part (abstract; Fig. 1-2); but fails to disclose the foot plate is mounted on a mounting rod in the form of horizontally connecting the support base; and a position fixing means which is mounted on one side of the foot plate to fix the position of the foot plate in the form of supporting the upper part of the foot plate. However, Ryu teaches a foot plate (10) is mounted on a mounting rod (124) in the form of horizontally connecting the support base (Fig. 1); and a position fixing means (Fig. 1) which is mounted on one side of the foot plate to fix the position of the foot plate in the form of supporting the upper part of the foot plate (paragraph [0028;0039-0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the height adjustable table provided by An to include the vacuum suction device, foot plate, and damper as taught by Lee and the position fixing means as taught by Ryu in order to provide a height adjustable vacuum suction table because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143 (A)). Claim 9: Lee fails to explicitly disclose the vacuum suction device is controlled such that the vacuum suction pressure is stronger as the height of the upper plate is higher. However, Lee teaches the damper may be adjusted by the pedal to adjust the intake amount of air (description paragraph 2); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply more air as the height of the upper plate increases so as to cope with the raising/lowering of the upper plate. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 and 10 are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda J Kreiling whose telephone number is (571)272-6091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /Amanda Kreiling/Examiner, Art Unit 3726 9/17/25 /JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 03, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603261
ALIGNER STATION WITH LIFTING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595900
MAGNETIC LIGHT HANGING KIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594616
WORK STRING TUBING CONNECTION RESTORATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583081
SUBSTRATE DEPOSITION HOLDING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582798
Crimping device and shaft manufacturing method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 455 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