Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/865,550

SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF DETERMINING NUMBER OF POSTURE CHANGES FOR A GROUP AND DETERMINING OPTIMAL OPERATING MODELS FOR INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED CHAIRS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 15, 2022
Examiner
EVANS, GEOFFREY T
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Movably Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
674 granted / 793 resolved
+17.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
812
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 793 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, in the reply filed on 10/29/25 is acknowledged. Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/25. 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13, 20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapij (20210386213). Regarding claim 1, Kapij et al. disclose a method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time comprising the steps of: providing in a given area (office; see paragraph 2) ... an automated chair (100; see paragraph 46), each automated chair comprising: a base portion (102; see paragraph 46), a vertical support (104; see paragraph 46) extending from the base portion, a horizontal support (104; see paragraph 46) interfacing with the vertical support, a right leaf (108a; see paragraph 46) extending from the horizontal support and configured to be driven by a right motor (720A; see paragraph 54) that causes the right leaf to alter between positions of horizontal and vertical (see figures 3A-B; see paragraph 48), a left leaf (108b; see paragraph 46) extending from the horizontal support and configured to be driven by a left motor (720B; see paragraph 54) that causes the left leaf to alter between positions of horizontal and vertical (see figures 3A-B; see paragraph 48), and an automated control assembly (700; see paragraph 54) electrically coupled to the right motor and the left motor (see paragraph 54; and figures 7B-C), and configured to operate according to an automated shifting pattern (see paragraphs 55 and 58) that causes the right leaf and left leaf to change positions (supra), wherein each position change is associated with a posture change (see paragraphs 50, 59, and 75), and wherein the automated control assembly is also configured to receive user input (see paragraphs 58-60) that can modify the automated shifting pattern; tracking (monitoring and recording; see paragraph 15) a number of posture changes (usage history; see paragraphs 15 and 58) associated with ... the ... automated chair over the period of time (see paragraph 21) based on the position changes; and receiving into a database (840; see paragraph 56) the tracked number of posture changes associated with ... the ... automated chair over the period of time. Kapij et al. do not disclose the disclose the chairs being plural. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Kapij et al. such that there were a plurality of chairs because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 4, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, further comprising the step of tracking over the same period of time a health measurement (biosensor feedback 902; see paragraph 57). Regarding claim 5, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 4, wherein the health measurement includes one of the of the following: number of sick days, costs spent on medical care, types of medical care needed, number of health claims, number of work-related injuries, type of work-related injuries, costs spent on prescriptions, blood test measures, heart rate (see paragraph 42), body weight, amount of coffee consumed, and amount of water consumed. Regarding claim 8, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 4, further comprising the step of comparing the health measurement to the tracked posture change (see paragraph 58). Regarding claim 9, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 8, further comprising the step of recommending a modification to the number of posture changes to be achieved by the group over a new period of time (see paragraph 58). Regarding claim 11, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 9, further comprising the step of updating the automated shifting pattern for at least a subset of the automated chairs based on the recommended modification to the number of posture changes to be achieved by the group over the new period of time (see paragraphs 58-60). Regarding claim 12, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, further includes an intelligent analysis module associated with the plurality of automated chairs that is configured to update the automated shifting pattern for at least a subset of automated chairs based on health data or productivity data associated with the group from a control period of time compared to health data or productivity data associated with the group from the period of time (see paragraphs 57-60). Regarding claim 13, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, wherein the automated chair includes one or more sensors (biosensors; see paragraphs 56-60), and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect data that that is used to determine a productivity or health measurement. Regarding claim 20, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, wherein the automated shifting pattern includes at least one of the following parameters: sequences of positions, durations between each position change, varying durations throughout the day, and varying durations specific to each position (see paragraphs 55 and 58). Regarding claim 23, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: tracking health measurement (biosensor feedback 902; see paragraph 57) or productivity measurement data along with tracked posture data (see paragraph 58) over several periods of time (see paragraph 21), wherein the automated shifting pattern is modified between each period to target a different range of posture changes (see paragraphs 58-60); and determining an optimized range of posture changes for the group (see paragraphs 58-60). Regarding claim 24, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 23, further comprising the step of: implementing into in an optimization operation model that guides the automated shifting pattern the determined optimized range of posture changes (see paragraphs 58-60). Regarding claim 25, Kapij et al. further teach the method of determining the number of posture changes for a group over a period of time of claim 1, wherein the user can modify the automated shifting pattern in at least one of the following of manners: altering the frequency of the posture changes, altering the type of posture changes used, altering the posture change pattern, pausing the automated chair from continuing through the current automated shifting pattern, altering the duration of time between changes for one or more posture positions, altering the duration of time between changes for one or more periods of time (see paragraphs 58-60). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, 14-16, and 21 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: The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "further comprising the step of tracking over the same period of time a productivity measurement", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 2, and claims 3, 6-7, and 10 depending therefrom. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "further including an intelligent analysis module ... parsing the group into at least two sub-groups based on the tracked number of posture changes associated with each of the ... automated chairs", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 14, and claims 15-16 depending therefrom. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "tracking over the same period of time a productivity measurement; ... ; and generating an updated automated shifting pattern based on the tracked productivity and health measurements", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 21. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (CN 107467933 A) is cited for disclosing an office chair that monitors blood pressure and makes automatic posture adjustments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590934
Method and System for Differentiation of Tea Type
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571772
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING MODE CHANGE OF UNIDIRECTIONAL COMPOSITE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562363
COORDINATE CORRECTION SYSTEM AND CORRECTION METHOD OF ROLL MAP IN ELECTRODE BREAKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554032
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC DATA COMPRESSION AND NOISE REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548640
PORTABLE ANALYSIS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 793 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