Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/798,712

LOUNGE CHAIR AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 08, 2024
Examiner
GRABER, MARIA EILEEN
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shenzhen Aoqi Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
141 granted / 237 resolved
+7.5% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
262
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This action is in response to the application 18/798,712 filed 8/8/2024 which claims priority to CHINA 202410905818.1 7/5/2024. 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. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 6,877,814 B2)(hereinafter ‘814). RE Claim 1: ‘814 discloses a lounge chair comprising: an upper frame (13, 14); a plurality of linkage bars (horizontal portions of 11 and 12 which rest on the ground) that are detachably connected to the upper frame (13, 14) a plurality of legs (portions of 11, 12 which extend upright at an angle lifting the chair off the ground) that are respectively connected to the linkage bars (see Fig 1); a support frame (21, 20) detachably connected to the plurality of linkage bars or the plurality of legs (all connected to each other as seen in Figs 1-2); a fixing mechanism (22, 230) detachably connected to the support frame (21, 20); and a flexible support member (24) for providing support to a body of a user, the flexible support member comprising an upper end fixed to the upper frame (one end fixed to 20), and a lower end fixed to the fixing mechanism (opposite end fixed to 22). RE Claim 2: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 1, wherein the flexible support member (24) comprises a plurality of strips that are fixed to the upper frame (13, 14) and the fixing mechanism (22) (all fixed together as seen in Fig 2). RE Claim 3: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 2, wherein the fixing mechanism (22, 230) comprises a fixing ring (ring shape) that comprises an outer ring and a fixing member (230) fixed to the outer ring (see Figs 1-2), each of the strips (24) comprises a lower end fixed to the outer ring (one end of each of 24 is fixed to 22), and the fixing member is detachably connected to the support frame (21, 20)(Figs 1-2). RE Claim 7: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 1, wherein the linkage bars are formed integrally with the legs, respectively (Fig 1; also see col 2, ln 10-25). RE Claim 8: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 1, wherein the upper frame (13, 14), the plurality of linkage bars (horizonal portions of 11, 12), the plurality of legs (upright portions of 11, 12), the support frame (21, 20) and the fixing mechanism (22) are configured to form a flat structure after being disassembled (col 2, ln 64-end). RE Claim 9: ‘814 discloses a method for assembling the lounge chair of claim 1, the method comprising: connecting together the upper frame (13, 14), the linkage bars (horizontal portions of 11, 12), the legs (upright portions of 11, 12), and the support frame (20, 21) of the lounge chair in a disassembled state (Figs 1-2)(col 2, ln 64-end), wherein the upper frame (13, 14) and the fixing mechanism (22, 230) are respectively connected to upper and lower ends of the flexible support member (24); and connecting the fixing mechanism to the support frame until the flexible support member is tightened (Figs 1-2). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (‘814) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2009/0289490 A1)(hereinafter ‘490). RE Claim 4: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 3. ‘814 does not explicitly teach wherein the fixing mechanism further comprises an inner ring, the outer ring surrounds the inner ring, and the lower end of each of the strips is clamped between the inner ring and the outer ring. However, ‘490 teaches a seat with a fixing mechanism (1, 3) and a flexible support member comprising a plurality of strips (mesh 2) (analogous art). ‘490 further teaches a fixing mechanism further comprises an inner ring (1), an outer ring (3) surrounds the inner ring (Fig 2), and the lower end of each of the strips is clamped between the inner ring and the outer ring (Fig 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of ‘814 in view of ‘490 such that the fixing mechanism further comprises an inner ring, the outer ring surrounds the inner ring, and the lower end of each of the strips is clamped between the inner ring and the outer ring as taught by ‘490 for the advantages of secure fastening. RE Claim 5: ‘814 as modified discloses the lounge chair of claim 4, ‘490 further discloses wherein the inner ring comprises an outer surface facing the outer ring (Fig 2), and the outer surface is a concave surface (Fig 2) (also see Fig 8). RE Claim 6: ‘814 discloses the lounge chair of claim 3. ‘814 teaches tightening the plurality of strips (when fastened slack is removed, compared to a free end). ‘814 does not explicitly teach wherein the fixing ring is configured to gradually tighten the plurality of strips during a process of the fixing member being connected to the support frame. However, ‘490 teaches a seat with a fixing mechanism (1, 3) and a flexible support member comprising a plurality of strips (mesh 2) (analogous art). ‘490 further teaches wherein the fixing ring is configured to gradually tighten the plurality of strips during a process of the fixing member being connected to the support frame (para 0027-0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of ‘814 in view of ‘490 such that the fixing ring is configured to gradually tighten the plurality of strips during a process of the fixing member being connected to the support frame as taught by ‘814 for the advantages of load support. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various lounge chair assemblies. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5. 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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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. /MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599066
PLANTING COLUMN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593759
LIGHT, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GROWING PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588666
Fishing Lure
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575543
SEMI-AUTOMATIC COMBING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568931
Pet Feeder
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
60%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+35.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 237 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