Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/638,765

Reclining Post-Operative Zero-Gravity Chair

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 18, 2024
Examiner
BONZELL, PHILIP J
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
680 granted / 865 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 865 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 20 recites the limitation "said footrest" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US PgPub #2016/0095768) in view of Fraser (US PgPub #2022/0022654). For Claim 1, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses a post operative chair comprising: a frame; a seat (124); a backrest member (122); a footrest member (126); and a leg assembly; wherein said leg assembly having a front leg, a middle leg, and a rear leg; and further wherein said seat having a cut-out opening portion (110) for placing a portion of a user’s buttocks thereover. While Gordon ‘768 is silent about the chair being foldable, figures 1-4 of Fraser ‘654 teach a lounge chair with a similar design that has a foldable frame such that the backrest member is pivotable relative to the seat from a reclined position to an upright position and having a front leg (206), a middle leg (200), and a rear leg (202); wherein in a deployed position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel while the rear leg extends at an angle orthogonal to the front and middle legs. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the foldable lounge chair of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to allow the lounge chair to fold so as to be stored in a smaller volume. For Claim 2, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the cut-out opening portion (110) circumscribed by a U-shaped rim (128, 132, 134) for providing zero-gravity support to the buttocks of a user. For Claim 3, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the U-shaped rim elevated from the seat. For Claim 4, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that he U-shape rim having a curved front edge (136) for supporting the user’s thighs resting thereon. For Claim 5, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the backrest member (122) having a spine supporting member (140) protruding from a front surface of the backrest proximal to the seat. For Claim 6, while Gordon ‘768 is silent about a head support member protruding from a front surface of the backrest distal to the seat. However, figure 4 of Fraser ‘654 teaches a head supporting member (400) protruding from a front surface of the backrest distal to the seat. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the head support of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to provide a more comfortable chair. For Claim 7-11, while Gordon ‘768 is silent about the legs being foldable, figures 1-4 of Fraser ‘654 teach that the front, middle, and rear legs are foldable such that in a folded position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel and that the footrest is pivotally connected to a front edge of the seat; the footrest being movable from a first position coplanar to the seat to a second position transverse to the seat and being lockable to the first and second position. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the foldability of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to allow the lounge chair to fold so as to be stored in a smaller volume. For Claim 12, figures 1-4 of Gordon ‘768 disclose that the U-shape rim having a knee support member (133) extending from the front edge of the U-shape member for supporting the user’s knees in the resting thereon. For Claim 13, figures 1-4 of Gordon ‘768 discloses a post operative chair comprising: a frame; a seat (124); a backrest member (122); a footrest member (126); and a leg assembly; wherein said leg assembly having a front leg, a middle leg, and a rear leg; and further wherein said seat having a cut-out opening portion (110) for placing a portion of a user’s buttocks thereover. While Gordon ‘768 is silent about the chair being foldable, figures 1-4 of Fraser ‘654 teach a lounge chair with a similar design that has a foldable frame such that the backrest member is pivotable relative to the seat from a reclined position to an upright position and having a front leg (206), a middle leg (200), and a rear leg (202); wherein in a deployed position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel while the rear leg extends at an angle orthogonal to the front and middle legs and in the folded position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the foldable lounge chair of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to allow the lounge chair to fold so as to be stored in a smaller volume. For Claim 14, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the cut-out opening portion (110) circumscribed by a U-shaped rim (128, 132, 134) for providing zero-gravity support to the buttocks of a user. For Claim 15, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the U-shaped rim elevated from the seat. For Claim 16, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that he U-shape rim having a curved front edge (136) for supporting the user’s thighs resting thereon. For Claim 17, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses that the backrest member (122) having a spine supporting member (140) protruding from a front surface of the backrest proximal to the seat. For Claim 18, while Gordon ‘768 is silent about the footrest being pivotally connected to the front edge of the seat, figures 1-4 of Fraser ‘654 teaches that the footrest is pivotally connected to a front edge of the seat, and further wherein the footrest movable from a first position coplanar to the seat to a second position transverse to the seat. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the foldability of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to allow the lounge chair to fold so as to be stored in a smaller volume. For Claim 19, figures 1-4 of Gordon ‘768 disclose that the U-shape rim having a knee support member (133) extending from the front edge of the U-shape member for supporting the user’s knees in the resting thereon. For Claim 20, figure 2B of Gordon ‘768 discloses a post operative chair comprising: a frame; a seat (124); a backrest member (122); a footrest member (126); and a leg assembly; wherein said leg assembly having a front leg, a middle leg, and a rear leg; and further wherein said seat having a cut-out opening portion (110) for placing a portion of a user’s buttocks thereover; wherein the cut-out opening portion circumscribed by a curvilinear rim for providing zero0gravity support to the user’s buttocks; wherein the curvilinear rim having a knee support member (133) extending from the front edge of the curvilinear rim for supporting the user’s knees resting thereon. While Gordon ‘768 is silent about the chair being foldable, figures 1-4 of Fraser ‘654 teach a lounge chair with a similar design that has a foldable frame such that the backrest member is pivotable relative to the seat from a reclined position to an upright position and having a front leg (206), a middle leg (200), and a rear leg (202) that are foldable; wherein in a deployed position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel while the rear leg extends at an angle orthogonal to the front and middle legs; wherein in a folded position, the front and middle legs are substantially parallel; and footrest is pivotally connected to a front edge of the seat; wherein the footrest is movable from a first position coplanar to the seat to a second position transverse to the seat. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gordon ‘768 with the foldable lounge chair of Fraser ‘654. The motivation to do so would be to allow the lounge chair to fold so as to be stored in a smaller volume. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 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 Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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. /PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 1/14/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600468
VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING (VTOL) WINGED AIR VEHICLE WITH COMPLEMENTARY ANGLED ROTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595077
SATELLITE CONSTELLATION FORMING SYSTEM, DEBRIS REMOVAL SCHEME, SATELLITE CONSTELLATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEME, GROUND FACILITY, SPACE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SPACE OBJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, AND OPERATION METHOD FOR AVOIDING COLLISION DURING ORBITAL DESCENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595058
AIRCRAFT GALLEY MOVEABLE COUNTERTOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589855
WINDOW MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR SNAP AND CLICK MOUNTING OF A WINDOW ASSEMBLY OF AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559220
BLENDED WING BODY AIRCRAFT AIRFRAME AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 865 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month