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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-10 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/23/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 9, recites "the first rod body" and "the third rod body." However, these structural elements are first introduced and defined in Claim 8, not in Claim 1. As currently written, Claim 9 depends on Claim 1, leaving the terms "the first rod body" and "the third rod body" without a clear prior introduction in its line of dependency.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soliveret (EP 0813854 A2).
In regards to Claim 1, Soliveret teaches: A lifting device (Fig. 1 'lifting apparatus'), comprising: a base (7 - Fig. 1); a lifting mechanism (1 - Fig. 1); and two supporting legs (8 - Fig. 4); wherein the lifting mechanism is arranged on the base (1 shown to be on base 7 - Fig. 3); one of the two supporting legs is hinged to a first end of the base ('constituted by a chassis (7) and two arms (8) articulated around two axes (9) integral with the chassis (7),', see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soliveret), and the other of the two supporting legs is hinged to a second end of the base (see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soliveret); the two supporting legs are configured to support the base (see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soliveret); and a spacing between the two supporting legs is adjustable ('motorized opening means of the articulated arms which is produced from the vertical endless screw which comprises, at its lower end, a connecting device ensuring the disengageable coupling of the latter to a means capable of causing angular separation said articulated arms and their return to the initial position where they are mutually parallel;').
PNG
media_image1.png
336
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soliveret
In regards to Claim 2, Soliveret teaches: The lifting device of claim 1, further comprising: an adjustment mechanism (2 - Fig. 3) arranged on the base (Fig. 2); wherein the adjustment mechanism is located between the two supporting legs (Figs. 2-4), and is configured to adjust the spacing between the two supporting legs ('the motorized opening of the articulated arms (8) is carried out by means of the vertical worm (2) which comprises, at its lower end, a device link (12) ensuring the disengageable coupling of the latter to a means (13,14) capable of causing the angular spacing of the arms (8) and their return to the initial position where they are parallel to each other.').
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliveret (EP 0813854 A2) in view of Ren et al., hereinafter ‘Ren’ (CN 207545382 U).
In regards to Claim 3, Soliveret teaches: The lifting device of claim 2, but Soliveret does not explicitly teach, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a fixing block, a rotating shaft, a rotating block, a connecting rod and an operating lever; the fixing block is fixedly arranged on the base; the rotating shaft is rotatably inserted into the fixing block; a middle of the rotating block is fixedly connected to a first end of the rotating shaft; the rotating block is connected to the two supporting legs through the connecting rod; a first end of the connecting rod is hinged to the rotating block; a second end of the connecting rod is hinged to the two supporting legs; and the operating lever is fixedly connected to a second end of the rotating shaft.
Ren teaches: wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a fixing block (19 - Fig. 1), a rotating shaft (35 - Fig. 9), a rotating block (31- Fig. 3), a connecting rod ([34, 35] - Fig. 9) and an operating lever ([22, 23] - Fig. 3, noting Figure 9 as well with improper # labeling); the fixing block is fixedly arranged on the base (Fig. 3); the rotating shaft is rotatably inserted into the fixing block (Fig. 9); a middle of the rotating block is fixedly connected to a first end of the rotating shaft (see annotated Fig. 9.1 from Ren), the rotating block is connected to the two supporting legs through the connecting rod (Fig. 9); a first end of the connecting rod is hinged to the rotating block (34 is connected to rotating block on one side, noting 'one end of the first connecting rod 24 and the rotating plate 25 obliquely upward (i.e. orientation shown in FIG. 3 top left) is connected, and the other end of the hinge base 31 and a supporting leg (8); one end of the second connecting rod 26 and the rotating plate 25 obliquely downward (i.e., the orientation shown in FIG. 3), and the other end connected with the other leg 8 by another hinge 31.'); a second end of the connecting rod is hinged to the two supporting legs (35 is connected to one of the support legs directly, and the other indirectly); and the operating lever is fixedly connected to a second end of the rotating shaft (see annotated Fig. 9.1 from Ren).
Accordingly, 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 adjustment mechanism of Soliveret to include the fixing block, rotating shaft, rotating block, connecting rod, and operating lever arrangement of Ren. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a known mechanical arrangement for selectively adjusting the position of the supporting legs through operation of the lever and interconnected rotating components, thereby facilitating controlled adjustment of the supporting legs. Such a modification would have involved the use of known mechanical components for their known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9.1 from Ren
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliveret (EP 0813854 A2) in view of Xue (CN 108030623 A).
In regards to Claim 8, Soliveret teaches: The lifting device of claim 1, Soliveret does not explicitly teach, wherein each of the two supporting legs comprises a first rod body, a second rod body and a third rod body fixedly connected in sequence.
Xue teaches: wherein each of the two supporting legs comprises a first rod body, a second rod body and a third rod body fixedly connected in sequence (see annotated Fig. 6.1 from Xue).
Accordingly, 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 supporting legs of Soliveret to include the first, second, and third rod bodies fixedly connected in sequence as taught by Xue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a known multi section supporting leg structure suitable for supporting and positioning the lifting device. Such a modification would have involved the use of a known supporting leg configuration for its known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
373
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6.1 from Xue
In regards to Claim 9, Soliveret in view of Xue teaches (as best understood by the claim objection indicated above): The lifting device of claim 1, Xue further teaches, wherein at least one of the first rod body and the third rod body is configured to bend toward a direction away from the base ('the two supporting legs 11 are in a parallel state, when the opening electric push rod 12 stretching or shrinking. the distance adjusting to left and right directions after passing through the fixed rod set 14 above the supporting front leg 11 transmits the force to the supporting legs, hinged on the side wall of the front part of the supporting leg of the two parallel link 133 as matching movement, the rotating plate 132 around the rotating shaft 131 to rotate, at this time, the supporting legs; the supporting legs open and close movement.' and 'the supporting leg can be adjusted to extend.').
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further configured the supporting legs of Soliveret according to Xue such that at least one of the first rod body and third rod body bends in a direction away from the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such a configuration to facilitate the opening, closing, and positioning movement of the supporting legs while providing an appropriate supporting configuration for the lifting device. Such a modification would have involved a known configuration of supporting legs for its known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliveret (EP 0813854 A2) in view of Jury (US 5875501 A).
In regards to Claim 10, Soliveret teaches: The lifting device of claim 1, wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a supporting rod (6 - Fig. 2), a sleeving rod (18 - Fig. 2), the supporting rod is vertically arranged on the base (Fig. 2); but Soliveret does not explicitly teach, a bearing assembly and a drive mechanism; the sleeving rod is movably sleeved onto the supporting rod; the bearing assembly is fixedly connected to the sleeving rod; and the drive mechanism is arranged on the base, and is configured to drive the sleeving rod to slide up and down along an outer wall of the supporting rod.
Jury teaches: a bearing assembly ('The journal ends of the shaft 264 are rotatable within bearings found at the end of each respective support arm.') and a drive mechanism (250 - Fig. 2); the sleeving rod is movably sleeved onto the supporting rod (Fig. 2); the bearing assembly is fixedly connected to the sleeving rod (Fig. 2); and the drive mechanism is arranged on the base (Fig. 2), and is configured to drive the sleeving rod to slide up and down along an outer wall of the supporting rod ('Concurrently, hub 250 travels up the shaft 230 as well as the head end 306 of the bed attached thereto. This upward hub 250 movement urges the bed from a ground adjacent position to a vertical position as assisted by the roller member 304. Raising the bed to a vertical position allows the user to more easily exit the bed for subsequent ambulatory movement with or without the assistance of another.').
Accordingly, 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 lifting mechanism of Soliveret to include the bearing assembly and drive mechanism of Jury, with the sleeving rod movably sleeved onto the supporting rod and driven to slide along the supporting rod. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a known driven sliding arrangement for controllably raising and lowering a supported structure along a supporting member. Such a modification would have involved the use of known lifting components for their known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-7 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 4, the prior art of record, including Soliveret in view of Ren, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the particular articulated connection between the rotating block, connecting rod, and supporting legs as claimed. Specifically, the cited references do not teach the combination of a first articulated column provided on each supporting leg and second articulated columns provided at respective ends of the rotating block, wherein each connecting rod extends between the respective articulated columns with the first end of the connecting rod movably sleeved onto the second articulated column and the second end movably sleeved onto the first articulated column. Although Ren teaches connecting rods extending between a rotating block and supporting legs, the specific articulated column and movable sleeving arrangement recited in Claim 4 is neither disclosed nor suggested.
In regards to Claim 5, the prior art of record, including Soliveret in view of Ren, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the particular locking arrangement associated with the operating lever. Specifically, the cited references do not teach a mounting seat positioned below the operating lever and having an elastically retractable limiting block configured to abut the operating lever, in combination with a plurality of spaced apart slots provided on the operating lever such that the limiting block selectively engages one of the slots to limit movement of the operating lever. The claimed arrangement therefore provides a particular cooperating engagement between the retractable limiting block and the plurality of slots for selectively limiting the operating lever at different positions that is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pirone et al., hereinafter 'Pirone' (US 20150196440 A1) teaches: The present invention is directed to a wheeled lifting device that is configured for positioning between an extended configuration and a retracted configuration and adapted for attachment to a wheeled or non-wheeled device. In the extended configuration, the wheeled lifting device is configured to allow for multi-directional movement of the wheeled or non-wheeled device. The wheeled lifting device may include an extension mechanism and at least one multi-directional wheel, where the extension mechanism is configured to move the wheeled lifting device between the retracted configuration and the extended configuration. The extension mechanism can include a mechanical mechanism, a hydraulic mechanism or a pneumatic mechanism.
Li et al., hereinafter ‘Li’ (US 20240315902 A1) teaches: An electric lift device includes a support assembly, a rail, a lifting column, a seat assembly and a driving component. The rail is provided on the support assembly. The lifting column is coaxially sleeved on the rail, and is configured to ascend and descend along an axis of the rail. The seat assembly is connected to the lifting column. The driving component is provided at the support assembly, and is configured to drive the lifting column to ascend and descend relative to the rail so as to drive the seat assembly to ascend and descend. The rail is inclined at a preset angle relative to the support assembly towards a side away from the seat assembly.
James (US 4633538 A) teaches: An invalid hoist comprises a base having a column support socket, an upstanding column detachably mounted in said socket and a lifting arm extending from the column. Said arm is movable along the column by a screw-and-nut lifting mechanism within the column, with the nut of said mechanism being coupled to the arm. A reversible electric motor unit and battery for energization of the motor are mounted on said base with an output shaft of a reduction gear box of the motor unit aligned with and directly coupled to the lower end of the screw of said lifting mechanism to provide a drive from the motor to the screw, through the socket. The drive between said output shaft and said screw is provided by a coupling which can readily be broken to enable the column to be detached from the base without disturbing the motor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights