Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/666,696

Folding Chair

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 16, 2024
Examiner
WHITE, RODNEY BARNETT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sunjoy Group International Pte. Ltd.
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 §112
February 20, 2026 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claim 11, line it is not clear to what “on one side” is referring. “On one side” of what? On lone 3, “the other side” lacks antecedent basis. Also, it is not clear to what “the other side”” is referring. On line 4,” is chosen in such a way” is unclear and confusing language. The aforementioned problem renders the claim vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BENJAMIN (U.S. Patent No. 2,260,735) PNG media_image1.png 204 442 media_image1.png Greyscale As for Claim 1, Benjamin teaches a folding chair 10, comprising: a backrest portion C, a seat portion 39, two armrests 41, and two pairs of a front leg A and a back leg B each, the front leg and the back leg of each pair being pivotably connected at top ends by a hinge 18, a bottom end of the backrest portion being pivotably connected to a back end of the seat portion by at least one hinge 21, the back legs of both pairs each comprising a rail 16 running to a lower portion of the back legs, wherein the backrest portion and the seat portion are on both sides slidably connected to the rails 16 at the position of the at least one hinge, a back end of the armrests being pivotably connected to the backrest portion, and an underside of the armrests being attached to the respective top end of the pairs of legs, and the seat portion being pivotably connected to the front legs on each side at hinges 35. As for Claim 11, Benjamin teaches that a distance from, on one side, a connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion to, on the other side, a connection of the seat portion to the front leg is chosen in such a way, that in a folded state of the folding chair the connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion can be arranged at a lower end position of the rail. Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FOWLER (U.S. Patent No. US 2,638,970) PNG media_image2.png 280 264 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 222 180 media_image3.png Greyscale As for Claim 1, FOWLER teaches a folding chair, comprising: a backrest portion 1, a seat portion 2, two armrests 5, and two pairs of a front leg 3 and a back leg 4 each, the front leg and the back leg of each pair being pivotably connected at top ends by a hinge 6, a bottom end of the backrest portion being pivotably connected to a back end of the seat portion by at least one hinge, the back legs of both pairs each comprising a rail 15 running to a lower portion of the back legs, wherein the backrest portion and the seat portion are on both sides slidably connected to the rails 15 at the position of the at least one hinge, a back end of the armrests being pivotably connected to the backrest portion, and an underside of the armrests being attached to the respective top end of the pairs of legs, and the seat portion being pivotably connected to the front legs on each side. As for Claim 3, FOWLER teaches that a connection of the seat portion to the front legs is being formed on each side by a connection element, one end of the connection element being pivotably connected to the seat portion and another end being pivotably connected to the respective front leg. As for Claim 11, FOWLER teaches that a distance from, on one side, a connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion to, on the other side, a connection of the seat portion to the front leg is chosen in such a way, that in a folded state of the folding chair the connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion can be arranged at a lower end position of the rail. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guichon (U.S. Patent No. 4,792,181). PNG media_image4.png 138 180 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 144 128 media_image5.png Greyscale As for Claim 1, Guichon teaches a folding chair, comprising: a backrest portion 7, a seat portion 1, two armrests 9, and two pairs of a front leg 3 and a back leg 4 each, the front leg and the back leg of each pair being pivotably connected at top ends by a hinge 5, a bottom end of the backrest portion being pivotably connected to a back end of the seat portion by at least one hinge 14, the back legs of both pairs each comprising a rail 1a running to a lower portion of the back legs, wherein the backrest portion and the seat portion are on both sides slidably connected to the rails 1a at the position of the at least one hinge, a back end of the armrests being pivotably connected to the backrest portion, and an underside of the armrests being attached to the respective top end of the pairs of legs, and the seat portion being pivotably connected to the front legs on each side at hinges 2. As for Claim 11, Guichon teaches that a distance from, on one side, a connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion to, on the other side, a connection of the seat portion to the front leg is chosen in such a way, that in a folded state of the folding chair the connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion can be arranged at a lower end position of the rail (see Fig. 5). Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409) PNG media_image6.png 222 254 media_image6.png Greyscale As for Claim 1, Tseng teaches a folding chair 10, comprising: a backrest portion 12, a seat portion 11, two armrests 15, and two pairs of a front leg 13 and a back leg 14 each, the front leg and the back leg of each pair being pivotably connected at top ends by a hinge, a bottom end of the backrest portion being pivotably connected to a back end of the seat portion by at least one hinge 2, the back legs of both pairs each comprising a rail 3 running to a lower portion of the back legs, wherein the backrest portion and the seat portion are on both sides slidably connected to the rails 3 at the position of the at least one hinge, a back end of the armrests being pivotably connected to the backrest portion, and an underside of the armrests being attached to the respective top end of the pairs of legs, and the seat portion being pivotably connected to the front legs on each side. As for Claim 11, Tseng teaches that a distance from, on one side, a connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion to, on the other side, a connection of the seat portion to the front leg is chosen in such a way, that in a folded state of the folding chair the connection of the lower end of the backrest portion to the back end of the seat portion can be arranged at a lower end position of the rail (see Fig. 6). 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409) in view of Brunn (U.S. Patent No. 4,898,421). Tseng teaches the structures substantially as claimed including that the rails each comprise at least one notch 311,321 to permit movement of the slide member into the locking section when unfolding the chair frame, and arrests movement of the slide member out of the locking section so as to position the chair frame in the unfolded state. The locking unit is operable to release the slide member from the locking section to permit downward sliding movement of the slide member along the guiding groove when folding the chair frame but does not teach at least two notches. Tseng does not teach that the underside of the armrests comprises a plurality of locking positions at which the underside of the armrests can be detachably locked to the top end of the respective pairs of legs. PNG media_image7.png 250 144 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 240 256 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 164 176 media_image9.png Greyscale Howver, Brunn teaches rails each comprising at least two notches 18, 19, 20, each defining a position at which a connection point to the backrest portion and the seat portion can be detachably locked in the rails. Brun also teaches that the underside of the armrests comprises a plurality of locking positions at which the underside of the armrests can be detachably locked to the top end of the respective pairs of legs. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rails, as taught by Tseng, to include at least two notches, as taught by Brunn, and to include a plurality of locking positions on the underside of the armrests, as taught by Brunn, since it would allow the seat to be be adjusted to have three different inclinations so that the user can select whatever inclined position he or she desires when sitting in the chair. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409) in view of Brunn (U.S. Patent No. 4,898,421). Tseng teaches the structures substantially as claimed the rails each comprise at least one notch 311,321 to permit movement of the slide member into the locking section when unfolding the chair frame, and arrests movement of the slide member out of the locking section so as to position the chair frame in the unfolded state. The locking unit is operable to release the slide member from the locking section to permit downward sliding movement of the slide member along the guiding groove when folding the chair frame but does not teach at least two notches. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409) in view of Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 6,030,032). Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409) teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the armrests comprise detachable covers. PNG media_image10.png 318 458 media_image10.png Greyscale However, Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 6,030,032) teaches a similar chair that incudes armrests comprising detachable covers. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the armrests of Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,409), to include incudes armrests comprising detachable covers, as taught by Tseng (U.S. Patent No. 6,030,032) since it would allow access to the parts located under the cover Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-8 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

May 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (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