Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/849,883

A PIECE OF FURNITURE OR A TEXTILE ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Examiner
TEJADA, JOSEANE ECLAIR
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Eleda S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
11 granted / 22 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +69% interview lift
Without
With
+68.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
47
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 22 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 5 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. Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Tae (KR 101032109B1). Regarding claim 1, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) A piece of furniture or a textile element comprising a layer of a sound-absorbing material (Tae: FIG. 1 [0043] sound absorption) and a layer of an electromagnetic interference (Tae: FIG. 1 [0007] block electromagnetic waves), EMIR shielding material for shielding against magnetic and electromagnetic fields (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] block electromagnetic waves). Regarding claim 2, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture according to claim 1, comprising a substantially rigid structure (Tae: FIG. 1 [0007] bottom surface layer 400) and a padding layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0024] memory foam 100). Regarding claim 3, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture according to claim 2, wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material comprises an outermost layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption). Regarding claim 4, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture according to claim 3, wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material comprises a fabric or a padding layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0032] outer fabric (200) located on the upper surface of the above memory foam (100)). Regarding claim 5, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture according claim 2, wherein the layer of an EMI shielding material for shielding against magnetic (Tae: FIG. 1 [0007] block electromagnetic waves) and electromagnetic fields is in direct contact with the layer of sound-absorbing material (Tae: FIG. 1 [0043] sound absorption) or with an interposed layer, or is arranged between the interposed layer and a padding layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption), or is arranged between the layer of sound-absorbing material and the padding layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption), or inside the structure, or between the padding layer and the structure (Tae: FIG. 1 [0034] outer fabrics (400) for the bottom surface located on the lower surface of the above cotton plate (300)). Regarding claim 6, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture or the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the layer of EMI shielding material comprises a fabric at least partially covered with an electrically conductive material (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] material that blocks electromagnetic waves such as nickel, aluminum or copper…conductive thread). Regarding claim 7, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture or the textile element according to claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive fabric comprises a layer of natural or artificial fibers and is at least partially covered with a metal (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] material that blocks electromagnetic waves such as nickel, aluminum or copper…conductive thread). Regarding claim 10, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture according to claim 2, wherein the padding layer is sound-absorbing (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption). Regarding claim 11, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture or the textile element according claim 8, wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material comprises a fabric, preferably an artificial fabric (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption). Regarding claim 12, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The textile element according to claim 1, wherein the textile element comprises a curtain (Tae: FIG. 1 [0015] first air mesh layer 23), comprising a first layer of sound-absorbing fabric (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption), and a second layer of EMI shielding material (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] material that blocks electromagnetic waves such as nickel, aluminum or copper…conductive thread), wherein the first layer and the second layer are configured to be at least partially in contact with each other (Tae: FIG. 1 [0042-0043] memory foam (100) has strong sound absorption). Regarding claim 13, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The textile element according to claim 12, wherein a distance, or an air gap (Tae: FIG. 1 [0015] first air mesh layer 23), is provided between the first layer and the second layer in order to increase the sound-absorbing performance (Tae: FIG. 1 [0015] first air mesh layer 23). Regarding claim 14, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The textile element according to claim 12, also comprising a third layer for shielding the second layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] material that blocks electromagnetic waves such as nickel, aluminum or copper…conductive thread). Regarding claim 15, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The textile element according to claim 14, wherein the third layer comprises a sound-absorbing fabric and/or wherein a distance, or an air gap (Tae: FIG. 1 [0026] second air mesh layer 14 on lower portion), is provided between the second layer and the third layer (Tae: FIG. 1 [0026] second air mesh layer 14 on lower portion), in order to increase the sound-absorbing performance (Tae: FIG. 1 [0026] second air mesh layer 14 on lower portion). Regarding claim 16, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The textile element according to any one of claim 12, wherein the electrically conductive fabric comprises a layer of natural or artificial fibres and is at least covered with a metal (Tae: FIG. 1 [0020] material that blocks electromagnetic waves such as nickel, aluminum or copper…conductive thread). 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. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae (KR101032109B1) in view of Zickmantel (US8631899B2) in further view of Song (CN102877564A). Regarding claim 8, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture or the textile element according to any one of the preceding claim 1. Tae does not teach wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material comprises a fibrous material having the following properties: - specific resistance of between 527 and 1552 [Pa s/m]. Zickmantel teaches wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material comprises a fibrous material having the following properties: - specific resistance of between 527 and 1552 [Pa s/m] (Zickmantel: FIG. 1 [Col. 1 9-11] porous so-called λ / 4 - absorber according to 800 <= <2400 Pa * s / m); It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tae in view of Zickmantel directed to including a sound absorbing foamed porous material of a specific porosity and specific flow resistance. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to fully absorb sound passing through a porous material for dampening rooms (Zickmantel: [Col. 1 7-11]). Tae and Zickmantel do not teach and- mass porosity of between 66% and 79%. Song teaches and- mass porosity of between 66% and 79% (Song: FIG. 1 [0014] foamed aluminum is 50 %-90 % porosity of foamed aluminum). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tae in view of Song directed to including a sound absorbing foamed material of a specific porosity and specific flow resistance. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to fully absorb sound passing through a material (Song: [0014]). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae (KR101032109B1) in view of Song (CN102877564A). Regarding claim 9, Tae teaches (Currently Amended) The piece of furniture or the textile element according to claim 8, wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material has a specific resistance of between 723 and 1213 [Pa s/m] (Song: FIG. 1 [0014] specific flow resistance is 400Pa * s/m-1200Pa s/m) and mass porosity of between 74% and 77% (Song: FIG. 1 [0014] foamed aluminum is 50 %-90 % porosity of foamed aluminum). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tae in view of Song directed to including a sound absorbing foamed material of a specific porosity and specific flow resistance. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to fully absorb sound passing through a material (Song: [0014]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEANE E. TEJADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT. 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (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. /JOSEANE E. TEJADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564277
EXPANDABLE MATTRESS COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559359
BEDDING FILLER USING GEL CUSHION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558041
COUCHTOP BOARD OVERLAY FOR A PATIENT COUCHTOP BOARD AND PATIENT POSITIONING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544285
BED ROBOT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544284
BED LIFTING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+68.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 22 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