Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/678,299

FOLDING STRUCTURE FOR BED LEG OF BED FRAME AND BED FRAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
THROOP, MYLES A
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
346 granted / 595 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
634
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 595 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 5/30/24. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected. Claims 3-8 and 11-13 are objected to. 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 § 102 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 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 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; or (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 10,806,247 to Chen. Claim 1. A folding structure for one or more bed legs of a bed frame (Chen discloses a table apparatus, however Chen also discloses in column 7, lines 31-32 that the sliding leg structures may also be used in beds), comprising: a bed frame body, a frame (Chen, Fig. 1), and the one or more bed legs (Chen, Fig. 1 #120), wherein: a first end of each of the one or more bed legs is pivotally connected (Chen, Fig. 4 #123) to the frame, the frame comprises a supporting rod (Chen, Fig. 1 #121a/121b) pivotally connected to the one or more bed legs and sleeved (Chen, Fig. 4) with one or more sliding seats (Chen, Fig. 4 #160), one or more connecting rods (Chen, Fig. 2 #150) are respectively pivotally connected to the one or more sliding seats and the one or more bed legs, the supporting rod of the frame, the one or more connecting rods, and the one or more bed legs form a triangular supporting structure (see triangular supporting structure in at least Chen, Figs. 1-2), the one or more connecting rods are operatively coupled to the one or more bed legs to enable folding and unfolding of the one or more bed legs and to enable the one or more connecting rods to be operatively coupled to the one or more sliding seats to have a specified amount of displacement along a length direction of the supporting rod of the frame, the specified amount of displacement enables the one or more bed legs to be in a folded state or an unfolded state, and one or more locking devices are disposed on the supporting rod (Chen, Fig. 4) of the frame for locking (Chen, column 1, lines 15-20, and Fig. 6) the one or more sliding seats to enable the one or more bed legs to be maintained in the unfolded state (Chen, Figs. 1-2). Claim 9. The folding structure for the one or more bed legs of the bed frame according to claim 1, wherein: the one or more bed legs comprise two bed legs (Chen, Fig. 1 discloses multiple legs), the one or more locking devices comprise two locking devices configured to correspond to the two bed legs (Chen, Figs. 2-3 disclose multiple locking devices #130), the two bed legs are respectively disposed adjacent to two ends of a short side frame of the frame (Chen, Fig. 1), the two bed legs are disposed on a long side frame of the frame, and a linking rod is disposed between the two locking devices, so as to realize a synchronized unlocking operation of the two locking devices through the linking rod (Chen discloses connecting rods between the legs, as seen unlabeled in Fig. 1; these linking rods provide the claimed functionality). Claim 10. A bed frame comprising the folding structure for the one or more bed legs of the bed frame according to claim 1 (Chen, sliding sleeve #160 locks legs #140). 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 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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,806,247 to Chen in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0337468 to Choi. Claim 2. The folding structure for the one or more bed legs of the bed frame according to claim 1, wherein: each of the one or more locking devices comprises a U-shaped seat having an opening (Chen Fig. 4 discloses a slider that has a rectangular cross section; however Choi teaches a similar sliding structure which includes a U-shaped cross section; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Chen with a U-shaped bracket since the two shapes are art recognized equivalents and doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and because there appears to be no criticality to the shape of the sliding structure, and it appears that there is no criticality to the the claimed U-shape, and that the rectangular shape of Chen, or the U-shape of Choi would have provided the same functionality), a snap portion (Choi Fig. 4 #42) facing the sliding seat and disposed on the U-shaped seat, and a snap member (Choi Fig. 4 #46) disposed on a respective one of the one or more sliding seats, a locking driving member (Choi Fig. 4, spring #7) is disposed between the opening of the U-shaped seat and the supporting rod of the frame, and when the snap portion is buckled to the snap member, the locking driving member drives the snap portion to be buckled to the snap member or terminates a position inhibiting connection between the snap portion and the snap member (see Choi Fig. 4; additionally the sliding structure of Chen Fig. 4 provides the same functionality). Discussion of allowable subject matter Regarding Claim 3, Applicant’s claim limitations directed toward “the locking driving member is a spring, the spring and the snap portion are respectively located on two opposite ends of the U-shaped seat, a pivoting end is located on a middle of the U-shaped seat, and the U-shaped seat is configured to have a specified amount of rotation about the pivoting end through elastic deformation of the spring” are not found in the prior art. The prior art of Chen and Choi do not teach a sliding seat and a U-shaped seat which lock together (as best seen in Applicant’s Figs. 5-6), this is differentiated from what is disclosed in Chen Fig. 4 or Choi Fig. 3. The independent claim, and its dependent claims, would be in condition for allowance if claim 1 were amended to include all of the limitations of claims 2 and 3. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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. /MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593928
SPRING MODULES FOR AN ADJUSTABLE SLEEPING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582567
Medical Procedure Facilitation System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575991
SURGICAL CART SUPPORTING ONE OR MORE SURGICAL ROBOTIC ARMS AND INTERFACE MOVEABLY INTERCONNECTING SURGICAL CART WITH SURGICAL TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12551395
PERSON SUPPORT APPARATUSES INCLUDING HIP AND THIGH SUPPORT ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539243
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAINTAINING PATIENT POSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 595 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