Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/365,301

FURNITURE ASSEMBLY FOR A WATERCRAFT AND WATERCRAFT HAVING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Aug 04, 2023
Examiner
TOPOLSKI, MAGDALENA
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Brp Marine US Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
301 granted / 542 resolved
+3.5% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+42.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al. (US 9821887, hereafter referred to as Wilson). For claim 1, Wilson discloses a furniture assembly for a watercraft (abstract and figs.), the furniture assembly comprising: a base member (16, 18) configured to connect to a surface of the watercraft (see fig. 1); a seat member (20, see figs. 8-9) moveably connected to the base member (via pivot arm 92, see figs.), the seat member being moveable relative to the base member between a seating position and a seat stowed position (see fig. 9, seating position, fig. 2-3 stowed); and a table member (78) moveably connected to the seat member (via hinge 84, see fig. 11), the table member being moveable relative to the seat member between an extended position (fig. 11-12) and a table stowed position (fig. 2), and the furniture assembly being selectively configured between: a storage configuration (fig. 2-3), in which the seat member is in the seat stowed position and the table member is in the table stowed position (see fig. 2-3); a seat configuration (figs. 8-9), in which the seat member is in the seating position (fig. 9); and a table configuration (figs. 11-12), in which the seat member is in the seat stowed position and the table member is in the extended position (fig. 11-12). For claim 2, Wilson further discloses wherein in the seat configuration, the table member is in the table stowed position (fig. 9). For claim 3, Wilson further discloses a first seat connecting linkage (92) having a first end pivotally connected to the base member and a second end pivotally connected to the seat member (fig. 10); and a second seat connecting linkage (92 on the other side, see fig. 8) having a third end pivotally connected to the base member and a fourth end pivotally connected to the seat member (see fig. 10), and the first and second seat connecting linkages moveably connecting the seat member to the base member (see figs.). For claim 6, Wilson further discloses wherein the table member is pivotally connected to the seat member (via hinge 84, see figs. 11-12). For claim 11, Wilson further discloses a first seat locking member connected to one of the seat member and the base member; a second seat locking member connected to another one of the seat member and the base member; and the first seat locking member being moveable between a first position and a second position, and with the seat member in the seat stowed position and the first seat locking member in the first position, the first and second locking members are engaged with one another, and prevent the seat member from moving from the seat stowed position, and with the seat member in the seat stowed position and the first seat locking member in the second position, the first and second locking members are disengaged from one another, and the seat member is moveable toward the seating position (Col. 5, lines 35- Col. 6, lines 9). For claim 12, Wilson further discloses wherein the first seat locking member is biased towards the first position (spring biased trigger device 140). For claim 13, Wilson further discloses a first retainer connected to the seat member, a second retainer connected to the table member, the first and second retainers being selectively connected to one another for retaining the table member in the table stowed position (80, 82) For claim 16, Wilson further discloses wherein the base member has a backrest (52, see fig. 9). For claim 17, Wilson further discloses wherein in the table stowed position, the table member rests against a bottom of the seat member (see fig. 9). For claim 18, Wilson further discloses wherein in the table extended position, a top of the table is configured to be generally parallel to an upper surface of the watercraft (see fig. 1 and 11-12). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, 7-10, 14-15 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. Claims 19-20 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Wilson does not teach a seat stowed position. This is not found persuasive because the position of element 20 in fig. 2 is considered the seat stowed position. The seat is not in the seating position of fig. 9, thus accordingly is “stowed” from being in that position. Stow is defined by Cambridge dictionary as “to put something in a place where it can be kept safely”. Element 20 is put in the position of fig. 2 where it can be safely kept until it is needed as for the position of fig. 9. The claims do not require any further details of the stow position and do not exclude stowing the seat in a backrest position. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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. /MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 04, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595050
ROTORCRAFT WITH A TAIL BOOM HAVING A DUCT-TYPE PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580086
A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE LEVEL OF HARASSMENT OF INSECTS ON A PLURALITY OF ANIMALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569738
PORTABLE GOAL FOR PLAYING A GAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557805
Motion-Activated Animal Repelling Device and Kit
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559223
FLOOR ARRANGEMENT IN AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+42.6%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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