Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/607,379

MULTIFUNCTIONAL COMBINED SOFA

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Examiner
ISLAM, SYED A
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sophia & William Brands Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
787 granted / 1159 resolved
+15.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.7%
+16.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1159 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spound et al. (4,046,421) in view of Shimosawa, Milberg et al. and Miller. Regarding claim 1, Spound et al. discloses a multifunctional combined sofa, wherein the combined sofa is formed by any combination of several sofa modules (figures 13a-13c shows a fan shape and figure 10 shows a square shape), the sofa modules comprise a fan-shaped seat (306, figures 13a-13c), a connecting seat (302), and a rectangular stool (302, figure 9), wherein the several sofa modules are combinable by being placed adjacent to each other relying on dimensional matching without any mechanical connection (figures 12-13). However, Spound et al. fail to disclose a lower portion of a fan-shaped backrest of the fan-shaped seat is fixed to a rear edge of a fan-shaped base, the fan-shaped base is fitted with a fan-shaped cushion, an outward central angle of a front circular arc edge to a center of the fan-shaped seat cushion is 45 degrees, a bottom of the fan-shaped backrest and a bottom of the fan-shaped base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane. Instead, Shimosawa discloses a lower portion of a fan-shaped backrest 26 of the fan-shaped seat 24 is fixed to a rear edge of a fan-shaped base 28, the fan-shaped base is fitted with a fan-shaped cushion (see figure 3 where the cushion can be seen), an outward central angle of a front circular arc edge (see figure 4) to a center of the fan-shaped seat cushion is 45 degrees, a bottom of the fan-shaped backrest and a bottom of the fan-shaped base share a plane, and support legs 30 are disposed at four corners of the plane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Shimosawa and use fan shape with legs in the invention of Spound et al. in order to reduce cost while protecting the base However, Spound et al. fails to disclose the left seat comprises a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plan, wherein the right seat comprises a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of the rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane. Millberg et al. disclose the left seat comprises a rectangular backrest 1120a/b, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base 1121a/b, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730 (applies to all setups); and an armrest a 1110a/b abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plan, wherein the right seat 1120a/b comprises a rectangular backrest 1121a/b, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of the rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730; and an armrest 1110a/b abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Millberg et al. and include right and left seat in the invention of Spound et al. because it is compact and efficient way to seat additional users. Furthermore, Spound et al. fails to disclose a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, an armrest abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane. Millberg et al. disclose the single seat comprises a rectangular backrest 726, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base 722, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730; and an armrest 710a abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, an armrest 710b abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Millberg et al. include single seat in the invention of Spound et al. because it is compact and efficient way to seat additional users. Spound et al. also fail to disclose an anti-skid gasket is mounted at a bottom of the support leg. Miller discloses an anti-skid gasket 160 is mounted at a bottom of the support leg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Miller and use the anti skid material in the legs of Spound et al. for the purpose of preventing any damages and injuries. Regarding claim 2, Spound et al. discloses in figures 3 and 4 a cross-section of the fan-shaped cushion (figure 3) is fan-shaped, and is formed by encircling of a left side edge, the front circular arc edge, a right side edge, and a rear circular arc edge; and one end of the left side edge and one end of the right side edge are respectively connected to two ends of the circular arc edge, the other end of the left side edge and the other end of the right side edge are respectively connected to two ends of the circular arc edge, and a length of the left side edge is equal to a length of the right side edge (figures 3 and 4 of Spound et al. are identical to figure 1 of the applicant’s invention). Regarding claim 3, Spound et al. discloses in figure 5 a lower portion of a rectangular backrest of the connecting seat is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion, the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane (figure 5 discloses a square shape of the figures 1-4 which contains all the elements of the seat back, bottom, base, cushion and casters). Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spound et al. in view of Shimosawa, Milberg et al. and Miller, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altemimei (11,633,046). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Altemimei discloses the rectangular stool 72 comprises a rectangular cushion 68, the rectangular cushion is fitted with an upper surface of a rectangular base 10, and support legs 20 are disposed at four corners of a lower surface of the rectangular base, wherein a cross-section of the rectangular cushion is rectangular. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Altemimei and use the rectangular stool in the invention of Spound et al. because it is compact and efficient. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spound et al. in view of Shimosawa, Milberg et al. and Miller, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotowicz (2,344,093). Regarding claim 9, Kotowicz discloses the support leg 13 is an oblique quadrangular prism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kotowicz and use prism shaped legs in the invention of Spound et al. because it is simple and cost effective. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm. 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 at 5712726670. 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. /SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 18, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 22, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746866
SEATING ASSEMBLY HAVING LOWER LEG SUPPORT
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746865
PNEUMATIC BLADDER ARRANGEMENT FOR NECKREST
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12733752
APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND KITS FOR A CHILD ACTIVITY CENTER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722544
CHILD SEAT WITH RECLINE MECHANISM
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721445
COMPUTER WORKSTATION
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.2%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1159 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