Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/929,970

System and method to lift and weigh a patient

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 29, 2024
Examiner
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Savaria Concord Lifts Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
697 granted / 878 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 878 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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0027] discloses “The central portion 210 generally a hole or slot 212 and a cavity or recess 214.” The way the statement is worded makes its meaning unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 9-11, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 9, line 1, “apertured” should read –apertures--. In claim 10, line 1, “further a slot” should read –further comprising a slot--. In claim 11, line 1, “comprising s a display” should read –comprising a display--. In claim 15, line 3, “patient a sling bar” should read –patient in a sling bar--. In claim 16, line 1, “maintaining the vertical the load cell” should read –maintaining the load cell--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2015/0107020 (Andersson et al. hereinafter). With regard to claim 1, Andersson et al. discloses a patient lift system comprising: a suspending assembly (260, 262, 276); a sling bar (300) pivotally attached to the suspending assembly (260, 262, 276); a tension load cell (324) attached to the suspending assembly and pivotally mounted to the sling bar (300); the tension load cell (324) measuring a vertical load regardless of the pivoted angle of the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 2, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 1 comprising a cradle (326) receiving the tension load cell (324) and being pivotally mounted to the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 3, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 2, the sling bar (300) comprising: a central portion (272); a pair of arms (Fig. 12a) extending from the central portion (272); wherein the cradle (326) is pivotally mounted within the central portion (272). With regard to claim 4, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 3, the cradle (326) comprising a cavity (Fig. 12a) shaped to receive at least a lower portion of the tension load cell (324). With regard to claim 6, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 3, the cradle (326) is pivotally mounted to the central portion (272) using bearings (paragraph [0089]). With regard to claim 7, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 3, the central portion (272) comprising a slot (Fig. 12a) allows the sling bar (300) to rotate about the suspending assembly. With regard to claim 8, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 3, the suspending assembly comprising a slot cover (276) allowing pivoting of the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 9, Andersson et al. discloses he patient lift system of claim 8, the sling bar (300) comprising apertures adapted to receive the slot cover, the slot cover being shaped to adapt to an outer shape of the central portion (272) (Fig. 12a). With regard to claim 10, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 1 further comprising a slot (Fig. 12a) limiting the pivoting of the sling bar (300) with regard to the tension load cell (324). With regard to claim 11, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 1 comprising a display unit (286) in data communication with the tension load cell (324) to display a load suspended to the system. With regard to claim 12, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 11, wherein the display unit (286) being mounted to a front cover being movable with the tension load cell (324). With regard to claim 13, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 1, wherein the load cell (324) is maintained in a substantially vertical position regardless of the pivoting angle of the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 14, Andersson et al. discloses the patient lift system of claim 1, further comprising an angle sensing system configured to measure the rotation angle of the sling bar (300) in real time (paragraph [0087]). With regard to claim 15, Andersson et al. discloses a method for measuring the weight of a patient while lifting the patient, the method comprising: suspending the patient in a sling bar (300) suspended to a lift system; pivoting the sling bar (300) with regard to a horizontal axis; maintaining a load cell (324) mounted to the pivoted sling bar (300) in substantially vertical position while measuring a load using the load cell (324) regardless of the pivoting angle of the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 16, Andersson et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the step of maintaining the load cell (324) substantially vertical comprises using a pivoting assembly to keep the load cell (324) vertically aligned. With regard to claim 17, Andersson et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising limiting a pivoting angle of a central portion (272) of the sling bar (300) with regard to the load cell (324). With regard to claim 18, Andersson et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising horizontally displaying the measured weight regardless of the pivoting angle of the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 19, Andersson et al. discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising displaying the measured weight on a display unit (286) attached to the sling bar (300). With regard to claim 20, Andersson et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising monitoring the tilting angle of the sling bar (300) to ensure accurate weight measurements (paragraph [0087]). 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. With regard to claim 5, Andersson et al. discloses all of the limitations except for the cradle comprising at least one protuberance and the central portion comprising a curved slot receiving the protuberance adapted to limit the pivoting of the sling bar with regard to cradle. Andersson et al. in Fig. 12a shows protuberances on the interior of the housing (272) that engage with curved slots in the arms (300) and protuberances on the back of the screen keyboard (290) that engage with curved slots in the front of the housing (272). On the interior of the back portion of housing (272), Andersson et al. shows curved slots that face the back side of the cradle (326). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Andersson et al. by providing that the cradle comprises at least one protuberance to engage with the central portion already comprising a curved slot and receiving the protuberance resulting in limiting the pivoting of the sling bar with regard to cradle as taught in Andersson et al. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP’s 2014/0210223, 2022/0133566, 2020/0289352, 2020/0253801, 2020/0183362, 2018/0344557, 2018/0318161, 2017/0027794, 2014/0013503, 2013/0019401 and 2010/0224841 each disclose a patient lift system similar to that claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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. /AARON R EASTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 29, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595767
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENGINE WEAR REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584423
TURBINE AND TURBOCHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577881
TURBINE SHROUD ASSEMBLIES WITH ANTI-MIGRATION SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571410
BRACE FOR CEILING DROP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571329
ALTERING STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF TWO-PIECE HOLLOW-VANE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
79%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 878 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