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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III (fig6- Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is a generic claim that reads on the elected Species III and on the non-elected Species I, IV-XII. This is found persuasive because claim 1 recites limitations that are shared in Species I, III, IV-XII.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a vehicle to be serviced” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the vehicle to be serviced--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “wherein the controller is disposed proximate the body” which is already recited in claim 1 (which upon claim 4 depends) on line 7. Claim 4 does not further define any structural limitations of the instant invention, the lifting device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al (US 2020/0377354 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as seen in fig1, Smith et al (‘354) discloses a lifting device (abstract, fig1), comprising:
a body 12 (para[0029]), the body 29 being configured for positioning the body 29 proximate a vehicle (para[0030], “selectively positioned with relative ease, as may be desired to accommodate different vehicles”);
a lifting mechanism (para[0031], “a lift mechanism”, fig1) depending from the body 4;
a battery 44 (para[0037]) disposed proximate the body 12;
an electro-hydraulic pump 28 (para[0032],[0037], “each battery 44 is operable to power the pump”) disposed proximate the body 12 in electrical communication with the battery 44 (para[0037]); and
a controller 14,36 (para[0029],[0034],[0035]) disposed proximate the body 12 (fig1) in electrical communication (para[0037],[0038]) with the electro-hydraulic pump 28 and the battery 44 (para[0034],[0037]);
wherein, when the controller 14,36 is activated, the battery 44 is activated to power the electro-hydraulic pump 28 to change a position of the lifting mechanism relative to the vehicle (para[0034],[0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, wherein the battery 44 is rechargeable (para[0037], “the batteries 44 are rechargeable”).
Regarding claim 4¸ Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, wherein the controller 14,36 is disposed proximate the body 12 (fig1).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, wherein the controller 14,36 is spaced apart from the lifting mechanism (para[0029]), the controller 14,36 being further configured as a remote controller 14 (para[0038]) in wireless communication with the electro-hydraulic pump 28 and the batter 44 (para[0036],[0038], abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, wherein the controller 14,36 is in wireless communication with the battery 44 and the pump 28 (para[0036],[0038], abstract) to control the position of the lifting mechanism relative to the underside of the vehicle (para[0029],[0036],[0038], abstract).
Regarding claim 7¸ Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, wherein the body 12 is selected from the group comprising an under vehicle handler, a crane, a jack (fig1), a press, a lift bridge, a stand and combinations of.
Regarding claim 8¸ Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, further comprising a wheel 20 (para[0030]) attached to the body 12, the wheel 20 being configured to position the body 12 proximate the vehicle to be serviced (para[0030]).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2020/0377354 A1) in view of Chandra (US 2023/0202816 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al discloses the lifting device as in Claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a charging port of the battery. It is noted that Smith et al discloses that the battery 44 is rechargeable (para[0037]). Chandra (‘816) teaches a use of a charging port 38 (para[0019]) used to charge a battery 36 (para[0019]) of a lifting device so that the charging port 38 may receive a charge cord to charge a rechargeable battery (claim3 of Chandra). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith et al to use a charging port, as taught by Chandra, for the purpose of receiving a charge cord to charge the rechargeable battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al (US 2014/0326934 A1), Stapensea et al (US 2016/0152454 A1), Boudreau (US 2016/0214839 A1), Van Houten (US 2018/0194601 A1), Horn (US 2022/0371865 A1), Kung (US 2023/0348243 A1), Gaarder (3,907,252), Yamagishi (4,513,950), Hsu et al (4,598,898), and Chung (4,746,097) teach similar lifting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights