Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/881,561

MECHANICAL STRETCHING DEVICE FOR MOVABLE SEAT UNIT AND SEAT UNIT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 04, 2022
Examiner
CANFIELD, ROBERT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Remacro Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
860 granted / 1133 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1133 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This office action is in response to the amendment filed 10/09/25. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0367652 to Crawford et al. in view of U.S. 2018/0027968 to Lawson et al. Crawford provides a mechanical stretching device for a movable seat unit having a backrest 16, a seat 14 and an ottoman or “footrest” 20. A base 202/348/350 supports the device on a ground. Back link 234 is a back mechanism configured to attach to the backrest 16. A pair of mirror image stretching linkages 200 [0052] each including a footrest element 286 attached to a footrest 20. The device includes front and rear transverse rails 348/350. The stretching device is configured to implement sequential conversions from a sitting state [Figs.16-17] with the footrest element 286 folded below a seating portion to a relaxing state [Figs 18-20] with the footrest element stretched in front and inclined relative to the horizontal and to a lying state [Figs. 21-23] with an increased angle between the backrest and seating portion. Paragraph [0050] recites the seat being at angle relative to the horizontal in the range of 15-26 degrees which overlaps the claimed ranges. Paragraph [0066] recites that the angle of inclination ottoman corresponds to that of the seat and the lift of footrest element 286 is further elevated from between four to seven additional inches [converts to 101.6 mm to 177.8 mm]. Fig. 24 also shows the angle of ottomans 20 substantially matching that of seat 14 in the fully reclines position. The figures show the claimed support elements and rods. With respect to claims 11-12 see motor 340 and drive links 328. The limitation “wherein an angle between the extension direction of the footrest element in the relaxing state and the horizontal direction is less than the angle between the extension direction of the footrest element in the lying state and the horizontal direction” is clearly illustrated in the marked-up figures below. In accordance with MPEP 2125: drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. PNG media_image1.png 595 920 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 615 895 media_image2.png Greyscale Crawford fails to provide two cross bars disposed between the front and rear transverse rails positioned above the ground (added by amendment to claims 1, 12 and 19) and the claimed height differences of claims 2 and 12-20. Lawson teaches in paragraph [0021] that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide “One or more cross- members 14 may connect portions of the base 10 and/or the pair of linkage mechanisms 26. In some aspects, the cross-members 14 are made from angle steel or tubular steel and may be affixed to the base 10 and/or the linkage mechanisms 26, such as with bolts”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the inventio that two crossbars could have been fixed above the ground and between the rails to the linkage structures of Crawford with bolts as taught by Lawson as it inherently would provide bracing for lateral stability the seat unit. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of proving lateral cross bracing to the stretching device of Crawford. With respect to the height differences in claims 2 and 12-20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have dimensioned the device of Crawford to provide the height differences in the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, all the claimed structure is provided by Crawford and a mere change in dimensions is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any unexpected or unpredictable results which have not been demonstrated. Applicant’s arguments filed 10/09/25, with respect to the rejections of claims under Crawford ‘274 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Crawford in view of Lawson ‘968. The sole argument was that Crawford fails to provide two cross bars as claimed which Lawson has been provided as a teaching reference. Also see teachings of seating units with stretching devices with cross bars as claimed in the following references of record: U.S. 2008/0001442 to Wiecek at 13; U.S. 2019/0038039 to Gu et al. at 31A/B; U.S. Patent 8,915,544 to LaPointe at 98/100; and The figures of CN 208625029U to Li Xiaohing et al. clearly show a stretching device for a movable seat unit including two cross bars connected to linkage structures at each end and positioned above the ground between front and rear transverse rails. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays. 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, David Dunn can be reached on 571-272-6670. 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. ROBERT CANFIELD Primary Examiner Art Unit 3636 /Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 04, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 16, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595676
HINGE-TYPE CONNECTOR FOR CONNECTING ONE-TOUCH FOLDING TENT FRAME MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593901
FOLDABLE CRUTCH STOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588765
ROCKING FURNITURE MEMBER WITH POWER SYNCHRONOUS MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584316
CANTILEVER UMBRELLA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575680
CONVERTIBLE PLATFORM FOR SUPPORTING A USER
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1133 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