Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/774,552

CHAIR WITH LENGTHENED SEAT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 16, 2024
Examiner
ISLAM, SYED A
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Motomotion China Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
760 granted / 1131 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1163
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1131 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. (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. Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawson (9,700,140). Regarding claim 1, Lawson discloses a powered chair, comprising: a chair frame ; a backrest assembly 14; a seat assembly 12; a footrest assembly 16; a linkage system 100; and a linear actuator 300 operatively connected to said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly for actuating said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly between various positions, including a seated/upright position, an extended position, and a reclined position (see figures 1-3); wherein said seat assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed seat plates 400 wherein each one of said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates has a substantially V or L-shaped configuration wherein a rearward leg of said V or L-shaped seat plate comprises a distorted or elongated N or Z-shaped configuration which includes a central, substantially horizontally extending section that, along with said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates, can accommodate an enlarged chair seat for, in turn, accommodating large or tall chair users (see figure A below). Regarding claim 8, Lawson discloses a powered chair, comprising: a chair frame ; a backrest assembly 14; a seat assembly 12; a footrest assembly 16; a linkage system 100; and a linear actuator 1818 operatively connected to said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly for actuating said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly between various positions, including a seated/upright position, an zero-gravity position, and a reclined position (see figures 1-3); wherein said seat assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed seat plates 400 wherein each one of said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates has a substantially V or L-shaped configuration wherein a rearward leg of said V or L-shaped seat plate comprises a distorted or elongated N or Z-shaped configuration which includes a central, substantially horizontally extending section that, along with said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates, can accommodate an enlarged chair seat for, in turn, accommodating large or tall chair users (see figure A below). Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lawson discloses said backrest assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed backrest mounting brackets 510 for mounting a backrest thereon and which can be moved between upright positions and reclined positions. Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lawson disclose said seat assembly is movable between a lowered, non-reclined position and an elevated, reclined position such that said seat assembly can attain a zero-gravity disposition (figures 8D, 9). Regarding claims 6 and 13, Lawson discloses said seat assembly is disposed at said elevated, reclined, zero-gravity disposition, said footrest assembly will be disposed at an elevational level which is higher than that of said backrest assembly, thereby permitting said chair to achieve said zero-gravity disposition (figures 8D, 9). Regarding claims 7 and 13, Lawson discloses said seat assembly is disposed at said elevated, reclined, zero-gravity position, a front end portion of said seat assembly will be disposed at a higher elevation than a rear end portion of said seat assembly (figures 8D, 9). 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 2, 3, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Griggs, Jr. (9,277,823). Regarding claims 2 and 9, Griggs, Jr. discloses said linear actuator comprises a motor 113, a lead screw housing 109, and a slide member 105 slidably mounted upon and operatively engaged with a lead screw 107 disposed within said lead screw housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Griggs, Jr. and use the linear actuator in the invention of the Lawson because it is compact, efficient and easy to use. Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lawson as modified discloses said chair frame comprises forward 610 and rearward 620 cross-bar members; said motor of said linear actuator is fixedly mounted upon said forward cross-bar member; and said lead screw housing of said linear actuator is fixedly mounted upon said rearward cross-bar member. PNG media_image1.png 510 722 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure A Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm. 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 5712726670. 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. /SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600281
HEAD SUPPORT COMPRISING A NOISE-SUPPRESSION DEVICE, AND VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589679
CHILD SAFETY SEAT AND SEAT BASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583370
Vehicle Seat Bracket and Vehicle Seat
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576763
ADJUSTMENT ASSEMBLY AND HEADREST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570193
VEHICLE SEAT WITH BACKREST MADE OF FRAME ELEMENT AND KNITTED FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
67%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1131 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