Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/562,291

MASSAGE CHAIR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 18, 2023
Priority
May 18, 2021 — CN 202110539551.5 +2 more
Examiner
NELSON JR, MILTON
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shandong Kangtai Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
1582 granted / 1871 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1896
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1871 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 . Drawings The replacement drawing sheets filed August 12, 2026 are approved. The objection to the drawings filed November 18, 2023 has been overcome. Specification The replacement abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology. Note the term “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US8496295) in view of CN202842960A. The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the chair being a massage chair. In the primary reference, note a chair (see line 28, col. 1), comprising a body (1) and a side panel (4 and/or 5), wherein the side panel is connected to the body by a swing bar mechanism (3), the side panel is moveable relative to the body by moving outward first and then moving backward to expand a space on both sides of the body (see Figure 3), wherein the chair further comprises a limiting mechanism (2), which is arranged between the body and the swing bar mechanism (see Figure 1) or between the side panel and the swing bar mechanism, the limiting mechanism is movably connected to the swing bar mechanism wherein when the swing bar mechanism is driven by the side panel to switch between different swing states (see Figures 3-5), the limiting mechanism is correspondingly driven by the swing bar mechanism to switch between different limiting states, such that the swing bar mechanism is maintained in the different swing states by the limiting mechanism. The secondary reference conventionally teaches configuring a chair as a massage chair. Note as described in the abstract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by configuring the chair of the primary reference with massage features, i.e. configuring the chair as a massage chair. This modification provides the advantage of user massage to the chair of the primary reference, thereby enhancing user comfort. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-10 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. Response to Amendment/Arguments Applicant’s response filed August 12, 2026 has been fully considered. Remaining issues are described above. Arguments with respect to the previously applied prior art are now moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion 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 MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm. 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. 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. mn /MILTON NELSON JR/August 28, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2023
Application Filed
May 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 12, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12722551
Vehicle Having a Vehicle Seat
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721442
OSCILLATION MECHANISM FOR A CHAIR OR AN ARMCHAIR
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721440
FOLDABLE RECLINER
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12715346
STRIKER ASSEMBLY AND SEAT ASSEMBLY
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12703279
CUSHION ASSEMBLY
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+5.7%)
1y 12m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1871 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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