Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/651,181

HIGH-LEG CHAIR AND MECHANISM WITH IMPROVED OTTOMAN

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
WHITE, RODNEY BARNETT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
L&P Property Management Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1790 granted / 2169 resolved
+30.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
2206
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2169 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
October 7, 2025 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 drawings were received on 05/08/2024. These drawings are approved. 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. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over White et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,299,596 B2). PNG media_image1.png 122 320 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 564 622 media_image2.png Greyscale As for Claims 1, 10, and 16, White et al. teach a high leg seating unit moveable between closed, extended and fully reclined positions, the seating unit comprising; two sides spaced from one another, each side having a lower edge and an upper edge spaced apart from the lower edge; a seat (not shown) extending between the two sides; an extendable ottoman including a mid-ottoman 9, a main ottoman 3 and a flipper ottoman 1; a chair back (not shown) extending upwardly from a rearward edge of the seat; a linkage mechanism 100 supported between the sides and coupling at least the seat, the extendable ottoman, and the chair back, the linkage mechanism including an ottoman linkage with links shaped to create a first void accommodating the mid- ottoman in the closed position and a second void accommodating the flipper ottoman in the closed position; and a motor coupled to the linkage mechanism to move the seating unit between the closed, extended and fully reclined positions (see the specification at column 6, lines 40-46 where it reads “Those skilled in the art may envisage that the seating unit further comprises a known front motor drive tube 24 (mounted on a front motor mounting bracket) and a rear motor drive tube 23 (mounted on a rear motor mounting bracket 22) which are driven by an external force such that the footrest assembly is changed from a folded state into an extended state.”). As for Claim 5, White et al. teach that in the closed position, the mid-ottoman is stowed above the flipper ottoman. As for Claim 6 White et al. teach that the linkage mechanism includes links that change the pitch of the seat in moving from the closed position to the extended position See Figures 1-2 and 4 and the brief description of Figures 1-2 and 4). As for Claims 7, 15, and 20, White et al. further comprises: a back bracket 17 and a seat plate 10, wherein a lower end of the back bracket is pivotally coupled to the seat plate at a pivot point. 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. Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,299,596 B2) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,890 B2). White et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but does not specify or show how the linkage mechanism is supported within the high leg seating unit. PNG media_image3.png 346 592 media_image3.png Greyscale However, Murphy et al. teach the concept of a high leg seating unit that includes a pair of chassis plates 15, wherein one of the chassis plates is coupled to one of two sides of the high leg seating unit, and wherein the linkage mechanism is supported between the chassis plates; wherein the pair of chassis plates are coupled to one another by way of a pair of rigid cross-tubes 16. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the high leg seating unit, as taught by White et al., to include a pair of chassis plates, wherein one of the chassis plates is coupled to one of two sides of the high leg seating unit, and wherein the linkage mechanism is supported between the chassis plates; wherein the pair of chassis plates are coupled to one another by way of a pair of rigid cross-tubes, as taught by Murphy et a, since it is a well-known method of securing a linkage mechanism in such high leg seating units as the chassis plates and cross tubes provide a stable and secure fixed connection between the linkage mechanism and the sides of the chair. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 8-9, 13-14, and 19 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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 R. Dunn can be reached at (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. /Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594862
BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593917
FOLDING RECLINER WITH GUIDE MECHANISMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588769
CONVERTIBLE INFANT CHAIR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588763
SEATING FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589683
SEAT PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2169 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