Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 19/021,852

FURNITURE WEIGHT SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Priority
May 16, 2024 — provisional 63/648,280
Examiner
ISLAM, SYED A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
The Step2 Company LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
783 granted / 1155 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.8%
+16.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1155 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 13 is 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 13 contains the trademark/trade name Adirondack. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an outdoor chair and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There are many similarities and dissimilarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Steinman (12,053,091). However, regarding claim 1, Steinman fails to disclose the furniture weight system comprises: (i) a fillable anchor defining a hollow interior and an opening in communication with the hollow interior, wherein the fillable anchor is configured to receive a fill material to increase a mass of the pool furniture, and (ii) a cap configured to selectively attach to the fillable anchor to cover the opening, wherein the cap is configured to inhibit the fill material from escaping the hollow interior while the cap is attached to the fillable anchor. Regarding claims 17 and 20, Steinman fails to disclose the furniture weight system comprises: (i) a fillable anchor configured to selectively attach to the support structure via the anchor cavity defined by the underside of the support structure, wherein the fillable anchor defines a hollow interior and an opening in communication with the hollow interior, wherein the fillable anchor is configured to receive a fill material to increase a mass of the pool furniture, and (ii) a cap configured to selectively attach to the fillable anchor to cover the opening and inhibit the fill material from escaping outside of the hollow interior. No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12733752
APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND KITS FOR A CHILD ACTIVITY CENTER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722544
CHILD SEAT WITH RECLINE MECHANISM
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721445
COMPUTER WORKSTATION
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12714242
INFANT HIGHCHAIR WITH HARNESS
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12708210
SITTING OR LYING FURNITURE
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.3%)
2y 4m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1155 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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