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 .
The amendment filled 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-10, 13, 16-17 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14-15 and 18-19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-6, 11-12, 14-15 and 18-19 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the following limitations are either not mentioned or do not have reference numerals in the specification that can be found in the drawings (also please see limitations lacking antecedent basis in the specification below): “screw”, “extending member”, “elongated portion”, “second portion” (claim 15) and “first and second trunnion mount protrusions” claim 1.
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 “screw” claim 15, 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“Screw”
“Extending member”
“Elongated portion”
“first and second trunnion mount protrusions”
“Second portion”
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 1-5, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltermann, US (2020/0284329) in view of Sikli, US (4113065).
In regards to claim 1 Soltermann discloses:
An electric linear actuator (2; fig. 1) for a lift assembly of a scissor lift (intended use), the electric linear actuator comprising:
a outer tube (20) having a first end (right hand side end; fig. 1; see annotated drawings below) defining an aperture (opening through which 18 extends and retracts) and a second end (at 12; see annotated drawings below) opposite the first end (as shown in fig. 1; reproduced below), the outer tube including a mount (see annotated drawings below) configured to pivotably couple the outer tube to the lift assembly of the scissor lift (intended use, where the mount exhibits structure to be configured to pivotably couple the housing);
an [a] push tube (6) received within the aperture and slidably coupled to the outer tube (fig. 1);
an electric motor (10 in the form of an electric motor) coupled to the outer tube (fig. 1) and configured to control movement of the push tube along an axis of extension (axis passing through center of major longitudinal length of 20 as shown in fig. 1;as described in paragraph [0034]; see highlighted excerpt below),
wherein the mount is offset from the second end of the outer tube along the axis of extension (electric motor 10 being offset and parallel to 2nd end and parallel to the axis passing through major longitudinal length of 6 as shown in fig. 1) such that the mount is positioned between the first end and the second end of the outer tube (as shown in annotated drawings below), wherein the outer tube and the push tube are substantially centered about the axis of extension (axis passing through center of major longitudinal length of 20 as shown in fig. 1), wherein the mount includes a first trunnion mount protrusion (see second annotated drawings of fig.,1 below) and a second trunnion mount protrusion (see second annotated drawings of fig.,1 below) that both extend substantially perpendicular to the axis of extension (see second annotated drawings of fig.,1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
368
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Soltermann does not disclose wherein the first trunnion mount protrusion extends away from the outer tube in a first direction and the second trunnion mount protrusion extends away from the outer tube in a second direction opposite the first direction
Sikli teaches a first trunnion mount protrusion (106; fig. 8; Sikli) extends away from the outer tube (76/78 likened to 20 of Soltermann) in a first direction (left hand side direction as shown in fig. 8; Sikli) and the second trunnion mount protrusion (108; fig. 8; Sikli) extends away from the outer tube in a second direction opposite the first direction (right hand side direction as shown in fig. 8; Sikli).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the mount protrusions taught by Sikli onto the actuator of Soltermann in place of or in addition to the unnumbered mounts of Soltermann as indicted in the annotated drawings above, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for sturdier anchoring of the actuator on both sides which would also result in higher safety where the actuator would experience less wear and tear due to turbulence and vibration and be less likely to unintentionally / accidentally detach from its mounting supports.
In regards to claim 2 Soltermann discloses a gearbox (16) wherein the mount is positioned between the gearbox and the outer tube (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3 Soltermann discloses the electric motor is offset from the axis of extension (axis through major length of the motor offset from and parallel to the major axis of 4).
In regards to claim 4 Soltermann discloses the electric motor and the push tube both extend away from the gearbox in a first direction (both motor and elongate member 4 extend in the same parallel direction).
In regards to claim 5 Soltermann discloses a brake configured to selectively limit movement of the push tube relative to the outer tube, wherein the electric motor is positioned between the gearbox and the brake (as shown in fig. 1 and described in paragraph [0039]; highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, although articulated head 22 of Soltermann can be likened to the recited second mount and appear to have a mount aperture that extends substantially perpendicular to the axis of extension; however, if it was found that Soltermann articulated head 22 does meet the limitations of claim 11, it is submitted that Sikli teaches the mount is a first mount (106/108; Sikli), and wherein the push tube includes a second mount (92; fig. 8; Sikli) configured to pivotably couple to the lift assembly of the scissor lift (via transverse member 94), wherein the second mount defines a mount aperture (through which pin 99 passes) that extends substantially perpendicular to the axis of extension (as shown in fig. 8; Sikli).
In regards to claim 12 Sikli teaches the mount aperture extends laterally through the second mount from a first side of the second mount (left hand side of 92) to an opposing second side of the second mount (right hand side of 92 as shown in fig. 8; Sikli).
In regards to claim 14 Soltermann discloses a nut (8) coupled to the push tube (18; fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltermann and Sikli as applied to claim 5 above, and in view of Arnot, US (2944689).
In regards to claim 6 Soltermann does not disclose a handle and a cable coupling the handle to the brake.
Arnot teaches a handle; and a cable coupling the handle to the brake (direct or indirectly once taught onto device of Soltermann) and configured to disengage the brake to permit movement of the electric motor in response to a user interaction with the handle (as described in Col 4 LL 74 – Col 5 LL 10; see excerpt below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the handle and cable arrangement taught by Arnot onto the actuator of Soltermann for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for manual means for the user to release the brakes and control the movement of the extending member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the drawings and specification objections set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because applicant submitted that “Applicant amended ... claim 15 to include the subject matter of allowable claim 17, ... The claims have been amended without prejudice and to further prosecution on the merits only to obtain prompt allowance of claims reciting allowable subject matter indicated as allowable by the Examiner”; It is provided that: As clearly stated by examiner in the previous office action on page 22 that “Important to note that upon clarification of the major objections, prior art may or may not become available” (see page 22 of Office action dated 03/27/2026), hence indeed upon applicant’s amendment which included amendment to the previously presented language of claims 7, 9 and 10 hence changing the scope of the claims, and as a result prior art has indeed become available and provided above for claim 1 rejection of Soltermann in view of newly provided teaching reference Sikli.
Conclusion
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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights