Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 13, 2026
Application No. 18/584,094

ELECTRONIC LIFTING EQUIPMENT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Priority
Jun 07, 2022 — provisional 63/349,682 +1 more
Examiner
HONG, SEAHEE
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Vis LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
540 granted / 788 resolved
-1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
814
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 788 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a vehicle” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the vehicle--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1: Claim 1 recites “a controller disposed along the handle”. However, none of the originally filed specification and/or drawings disclose that a controller is disposed “along” the handle. Claims 3, 5-8 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims are in condition for allowance and newly added limitations are supported in paragraph [0056] which describes a battery receptacle/connector that “may be attached to and/or located along the handle 216”. However, such paragraph does not clearly support that the controller is disposed along the handle (as aforementioned). Therefore, claim 1 is not allowable. It is noted that the claim sets do not have the withdrawn claims. Claims need to be provided to be considered if Applicant wants to rejoin them upon allowance (which cannot be determined at this time). 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 28, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703918
JIG FOR ALIGNMENT IN RELATION TO A PROCESS CHAMBER, AND RELATED APPARATUS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12698853
COUPLING DEVICE FOR PRODUCING A NON-PERMANENT HYDRAULIC CONNECTION
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12692592
ROTARY ELECTRICAL FEEDTHROUGH INTEGRATION FOR PROCESS CHAMBER
4y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12696716
Z-ROTARY WAFER POSITIONING STAGE COMPRISING A LIFT-PIN MECHANISM
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12691551
SELF-CENTERING VISE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.9%)
2y 10m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 788 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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