Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/688,232

DETACHABLE ELASTIC PAD, FURNITURE, AND ASSEMBLING METHOD

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
ABRAHAM, TANIA
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 813 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
845
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 813 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 130 (in fig. 14). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 recites a plurality of "flexible modules" but lines 7 and 11-12 recite "elastic modules"; while it appears the recitations are referring to the same element, the terminology should be consistent in designating the claim elements. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 26-45 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 34-36 and 45 of copending Application No. 18/687783 (reference application), U.S. Publication No. 2024/0382010 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 31, 34-36 and 45 of the published reference application recite the subject matter claimed in claims 26 and 45 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Regarding instant claim 26: With reference to claim 35, which includes the limitations of base claim 31 and intervening claim 34, recites the flexible cover of instant claim 26 (as an “outer cover” in claim 31) comprising the same following elements: enclosed receiving space, top and bottom layers (as top and bottom “cover body”), side enclosure that is detachable, elastic module having a conical spring and spring bracket (as “spring support”, claim 35), and rail beams (claim 35). Regarding instant claim 45: With reference to claim 45 of the published reference application, which includes the limitations of base claim 31 and intervening claims 34-36, the structure and structural cooperative relationships of the detachable elastic pad resulting from the assembling method of instant claim 45 are also rendered obvious; namely, the reference claims 31 and 34-36 recite the flexible cover elements as explained above, and reference claim 45 recites the elastic balance net (as “elastic balancing web layer”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 26-45 would be allowable upon the filing of a proper Terminal Disclaimer. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art did not show or suggest, either singly or combined, an elastic pad that can be disassembled by comprising the pad of a enclosing flexible cover having a bottom layer configured with a plurality of rail beams, wherein a plurality of elastic modules comprising conical springs held in a spring bracket can be slid onto the rail beams and enclosed by the cover. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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 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. /T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636 /DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600280
SEAT SUPPORT ELEMENT COMPRISING AN ADJUSTABLE REST ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599249
ANTI-ROLLOVER STRUCTURE, CARRYING DEVICE AND BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594864
DRAW-IN BAR FOR HOLDING A COVER, COVER FASTENING SYSTEM AND VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594865
ADJUSTMENT DEVICE FOR A SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576757
VEHICLE SEAT, FOR AT LEAST TWO USERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
72%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 813 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