Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/796,845

Powered Lifting Table

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Examiner
CHEN, JOSE V
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Marina Tf Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
1684 granted / 2159 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
2195
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2159 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randlov (20210227970). The reference to Randlov teaches structure as claimed including a lifting table, comprising: a tabletop (19), comprising a tabletop surface; and a lifting leg (14), coupled to the tabletop and configured to dispose the tabletop within a plurality of different heights, the lifting leg comprising: a first leg element (11) , comprising a first leg distal top end and a first leg distal bottom end; a second leg element (10), comprising a second leg distal top end and a second leg distal bottom end, wherein at least a portion of the second leg element (10) is disposed within the first leg element (11), and wherein the second leg element is configured to move relative to the first leg element; a first L-shaped friction sliding plate(2), comprising a first cross-sectional profile, the first L-shaped friction sliding plate disposed between the first leg element and the second leg element, coupled to the second leg distal top end of the second leg element, and configured to move relative to the first leg element; and a second L-shaped friction sliding plate, comprising a second cross-sectional profile (3) different from the first cross-sectional profile, the second L-shaped friction sliding plate disposed between the first leg element and the second leg element, coupled to the first leg distal bottom end of the first leg element, and configured to move relative to the second leg element. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randlov (20210227970) in view of Walling (20200132116). The reference to Randlov teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including L-shaped sliding plates, and grooves of different orientations (at least figs 1-2)(different orientations in that they are in different planes) the only difference being that the arm of the L-shaped members are not of different lengths and does not include vertical cutouts. However, the reference to Walling teaches the use of providing arms of different lengths of the L-shaped members (at least fig 7A at 76B, 78C) and vertical cutouts (fig 4A, B adjacent to 34 ) PNG media_image1.png 182 280 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Randlov with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a the arms of the L-shaped members of different lengths and vertical cutouts, as taught by Walling since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including vertically adjustable leg and table structure including friction reducing members. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00. 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 Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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. /JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599240
A LUMBAR SUPPORT ASSEMBLY AND RELATED METHOD, AND A BACKREST ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594487
JIGSAW PUZZLE TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589818
RIDER-POSTURE CHANGING ASSEMBLY FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576760
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MOUNTING A HEADREST FOR A VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575666
FURNITURE WITH ORGANIZATIONAL FRAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.2%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2159 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