Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/093,285

Cylinder Lifting Device

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 04, 2023
Examiner
SNELTING, JONATHAN D
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Old Second National Bank
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 855 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 855 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/2026 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 6 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 19 recite “the lower powered actuator is connected between the second and third clamping structures” but according to the Specification and the Figures, the lower powered actuator is connected between the third and fourth clamping structures. This appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1, 6-9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma (US 2,645,372) in view of Beard (US 10,450,176 B1). Consider claims 1 and 6. Broersma teaches an article lifting device, comprising: a base (10) supported on a plurality of wheels; a source of power (motor of 10) mounted on the base; a clamping apparatus (see fig. 4); a lifting device (11, 12, 15) mounted on the base and connected to the clamping apparatus to lift the clamping apparatus; and the clamping apparatus having a powered actuator (40) that receives power from the source of power (via 53), to clamp or unclamp an article. Broersma teaches that the clamping apparatus comprises a vertical bracket (17, 24, etc.) and upper first and second clamping structures (upper 58 and 59) carried by the vertical bracket, the first clamping structure fixed to the vertical bracket (via 36) and the second clamping structure pivotally attached to the vertical bracket (via 37), and lower third and fourth clamping structures (lower 58 and 59) carried by the vertical bracket, the third clamping structure fixed to the vertical bracket (via 36) and the fourth clamping structure pivotally attached to the vertical bracket (via 37), the first, second, third, and fourth clamping structures having arcuate engagement surfaces (see fig. 4) that face opposite sides of an article and wherein the at least one actuator is connected between the first and second clamping structures (proximate 44 and 45 in fig. 4). Broersma’s device is capable of lifting, clamping, and unclamping a gas cylinder. Please see MPEP 2115 regarding article worked upon by an apparatus. Broersma does not explicitly teach an upper powered actuator and a lower powered actuator as specifically claimed. Beard teaches a vertical bracket (130), an upper powered actuator (171, 172), a lower powered actuator (171’, 172’), upper first and second clamping structures and lower third and fourth clamping structures (155, 155, 155, 155; see fig. 2) carried by the vertical bracket, the upper powered actuator connected between the first and second clamping structures, and the lower powered actuator connected between the third and fourth clamping structures (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Broersma’s clamping apparatus to have an upper powered actuator and a lower powered actuator as taught by Beard in order to increase the clamping force or to provide redundancy in the event of a single failure. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Consider claim 7. Broersma teaches that the arcuate engagement surfaces of the first and second clamping structures are connected to the third and fourth clamping structures respectively by a plurality of vertical slats (between 59 and 59 and between 58 and 58, see fig. 3). Consider claim 8. Broersma teaches that the lifting device is powered (see column 2, lines 5-9). Consider claim 9. Broersma teaches that the lifting device comprises a motor operated lifting device (see column 2, lines 5-9) connected to the clamping apparatus and comprising a guide column (11) guiding a vertical movement of the clamping apparatus. Consider claims 21 and 22. Broersma teaches a portable lifting device, comprising: a base (10) supported on a plurality of wheels; a source of power (motor of 10) carried by the base; a clamping apparatus (see fig. 4) carried by the base; a lifting device (11, 12, 15) carried on the base and connected to the clamping apparatus to selectively raise or lower the clamping apparatus; the clamping apparatus having a clamping actuator (40) which comprises a linear actuator that receives power from the source of power (via 53), to clamp or unclamp an article; and wherein the lifting device comprises a lifting actuator to selectively raise or lower the clamping apparatus (see column 2, lines 5-9). Broersma’s clamping apparatus is capable of lifting, clamping, and unclamping a gas cylinder. Please see MPEP 2115 regarding article worked upon by an apparatus. Broersma does not explicitly teach an upper actuator and a lower actuator as specifically claimed. Beard teaches an upper actuator (171, 172) and a lower actuator (171’, 172’), each of which comprises a linear actuator. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Broersma’s clamping apparatus to have an upper actuator and a lower actuator as taught by Beard in order to increase the clamping force or to provide redundancy in the event of a single failure. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Consider claim 22. Broersma teaches that the at least one clamping actuator is a first linear actuator (40). Claims 17, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma (US 2,645,372) in view of Beard (US 10,450,176 B1) in view of Bennett (US 5,346,045). Consider claims 17, 19, and 20. Broersma teaches an article lifting device, comprising: a base (10) supported on a plurality of wheels; a source of power (motor of 10); at least one column (11) extending vertically from the base; a clamping apparatus (see fig. 4); a lifting device (11, 12, 15) mounted on the base and connected to the clamping apparatus for moving the clamping apparatus along the column; and the clamping apparatus having a powered actuator (40) that receives power from the source of power (via 53) and can be expanded to cause the clamping apparatus to grip an article (see fig. 4). Broersma teaches that the clamping apparatus comprises a vertical bracket (17, 24, etc.) and upper first and second clamping structures (upper 58 and 59) carried by the vertical bracket, the first clamping structure fixed to the vertical bracket (via 36) and the second clamping structure pivotally attached to the vertical bracket (via 37), and lower third and fourth clamping structures (lower 58 and 59) carried by the vertical bracket, the third clamping structure fixed to the vertical bracket (via 36) and the fourth clamping structure pivotally attached to the vertical bracket (via 37), the first, second, third, and fourth clamping structures having arcuate engagement surfaces (see fig. 4) that face opposite sides of an article and wherein the at least one actuator is connected between the first and second clamping structures (proximate 44 and 45 in fig. 4). Broersma’s clamping apparatus is capable of lifting, clamping, and unclamping a gas cylinder. Please see MPEP 2115 regarding article worked upon by an apparatus. Broersma does not explicitly teach an upper powered actuator and a lower powered actuator as specifically claimed. Beard teaches a vertical bracket (130), an upper powered actuator (171, 172), a lower powered actuator (171’, 172’), upper first and second clamping structures and lower third and fourth clamping structures (155, 155, 155, 155; see fig. 2) carried by the vertical bracket, the upper powered actuator connected between the first and second clamping structures, and the lower powered actuator connected between the third and fourth clamping structures (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Broersma’s clamping apparatus to have an upper powered actuator and a lower powered actuator as taught by Beard in order to increase the clamping force or to provide redundancy in the event of a single failure. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Broersma in view of Beard does not explicitly teach that the actuators are electric linear actuators which receive power from a source of electrical power. Bennett teaches an electric linear actuator (10) which receives power from a source of electrical power (supply of electrical power to 21 and 22; see column 6, lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the actuators of Broersma in view of Beard to be electric linear actuators as taught by Bennett in order to operate indoors quietly and without emissions. Consider claim 23. Broersma in view of Beard does not explicitly teach that the lifting actuator comprises an electric motor driving a screw drive. Bennett teaches an electric linear actuator (10) comprising an electric motor (21, 22) driving a screw drive (13, 14, etc.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lifting actuator of Broersma in view of Beard to be an electric linear actuator as taught by Bennett in order to operate indoors quietly and without emissions. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Broersma teaches a single actuator rather than upper and lower actuators as recited in the claims. This argument is not persuasive. Beard teaches upper and lower actuators, and it would have been obvious to modify Broersma’s clamping apparatus to have upper and lower actuators as taught by Beard, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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. /JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 28, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Jan 28, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595125
AUTOMATED WAREHOUSE SYSTEM AND RETREAT MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595122
Powered industrial truck
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598947
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583671
REFUSE TRUCK WITH HELICAL PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577090
CONTAINER LIFTING DEVICES AND METHODS FOR LIFTING CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 855 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