Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/172,407

Childrens Activity Table

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Examiner
HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 1067 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 15 the “an” before “mounting bracket” should be replaced with an “a” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil (KR101818485B1) and Harrow (10508674). Go Un Gil discloses a table (Fig. 1) that could be used for children’s activities having at least a first leg (60) with a first side surface perpendicular to a second side surface at a first corner with a mounting mechanism (80) positioned on the first corner (Figs. 2), first (31) and second (31) perpendicular aprons (Fig. 2), an apron corner support bracket (50) with a mounting mechanism having a first end fixed to the first apron, a second opposite end fixed to the second apron, an outer surface and an opposite inner surface (Fig. 2) and a planar body table top (20) that can be connected to the first and second aprons (Fig. 1). Go Un Gil discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the configuration of the mounting mechanisms on each of the first leg and apron corner support bracket. Harrow discloses mounting means for use in connecting furniture components (Fig. 2), wherein a first component includes an elongated arcuate mounting plate (404B) with curved sides forming first and second rails spaced apart in a non-parallel orientation (Fig. 13) and configured such that the plate is open on the top and bottom (column 7 lines 40-56) to form a pocket (406B) and a second component includes an elongated arcuate plate defining a mounting bracket (402C) with respective rails spaced apart in a non-parallel orientation (Fig. 12) that is configured to slidably and removably engage within the pocket of the mounting plate in a standing configuration (Figs. 2, 14 & 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the leg mounting mechanism of Go Un Gil as an elongated arcuate mounting plate as taught by Harrow and to configure the apron mounting mechanism of Go Un Gil as an elongated arcuate mounting bracket as taught by Harrow for the predictable result of shaping and configuring the components to be mounted together in a manner that provides an interconnection with improved rigidity and stability and fewer connecting components for easier assembly (column 4 lines 26-44). Claim(s) 2, 3, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil and Harrow as applied above and further in view of Nayak (5055081). Go Un Gil and Harrow disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the configuration of the table top. Nayak discloses a table configured to form a children’s activity table (abstract) that includes perpendicular apron members, at least one leg and a smooth table top surface (100) that includes markings (104) thereon for use by children during play (Fig. 7, column 4 lines 35-56) positioned so as to be in coplanar alignment with top surfaces of the perpendicular apron members (Fig. 6). The table can also be configured with a planar table top (30) having a surface configured with recesses to engage with interconnecting play toys and have an opening adapted (50) to receive the interconnectable play toys with a bag or storage bin connected to a bottom surface of the table top and positioned below the opening (Figs. 1, 3 & 4, column 3 lines 8-19 & 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Nayak to modify the table top of Go Un Gil to be configured as either a smooth planar surface with markings coplanar with the top of the aprons or to have the top surface configured with a storage opening and for engaging with interconnecting play toys for the predictable results of giving the table enhanced utility and functionality by enabling the table to take a wider variety of forms that can further be used to provide amusement to children. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak as applied above and further in view of Mei (CN213247984U). Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of having a storage net. Mei discloses that a storage element that can be attached to a children toy table is a storage net (43) capable of receiving toys (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bin or bag of Nayak with a storage net as taught by Mei for the predictable result of providing additional storage solutions using known storage elements. Furthermore, using known materials suitable for the intended use has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak as applied above and further in view of King (5615619). Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the top playing surface having a plurality of knobs projecting perpendicularly from the playing surface that are adapted for mating with interconnecting play toys. King discloses a children activity table that can include a top surface (250) that is configured to be useable with interconnecting play toys (104) by having a plurality of perpendicular knobs projecting therefrom (254) for mating with the interconnecting play toys (Figs. 1 & 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the table top engagement recesses of Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak to include a plurality of perpendicular projecting knobs as taught by King for the predictable result of providing known structures that are configured to interact with interconnecting toys in a manner that still provides enhanced play value to the table by enabling interconnecting toys to be attached thereto. In regard to the table top having two openings, the examiner notes that a mere duplication of parts has been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak as applied for claim 8 above and further in view of Schuldt (1850420). Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the marking including a checker board design. Schuldt discloses a table with a table top having markings that include a checker board (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the markings to include a checker board for the predictable result of providing the table with enhanced utility and functionality by enabling a wider variety of uses for the table including game play. Furthermore, printed matter need not be given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak as applied for claim 8 above and further in view of Mottram (GB2490544A). Go Un Gil, Harrow and Nayak disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the markings including a train track design. Mottram discloses a table with a table top having markings that include a train track design (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the markings to include a train track design for the predictable result of providing the table with enhanced utility and functionality by enabling a wider variety of uses for the table including imaginative play. Furthermore, printed matter need not be given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00. 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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. /A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2025
Application Filed
May 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 11, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569779
BUBBLE-BLOWING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551813
Modular Block System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544683
DRAG RACING STABILITY MANAGEMENT FOR A MODEL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528023
COMBINATION ARTICLES OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPRISING COMPLEMENTARY ACTION FIGURE AND RECONFIGURABLE CASE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12496532
REMOVABLE STRUCTURE OF SIMULATED APPEARANCE OF MUZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 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