Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/524,398

Easy chair

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 24, 2024
Examiner
WOLFLEY, MARK DAVID
Art Unit
2931
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Figuratti Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
97%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 97% — above average
97%
Career Allow Rate
172 granted / 177 resolved
+37.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
67.5%
+27.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 177 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 . DETAILED ACTION Foreign Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Union Intellectual Property Office on 03/06/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EM015052838-0001 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g)(1), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. Specification The following formal matters are noted: there are only 2 reproductions, and they are both described as “Front”. It is clear from the disclosure that they are not both taken from the same view. Applicant is not required to correct the above-noted formal matters, but may wish to do so to place the application in better form. The paragraph “Easy chair with contoured mattress…perpendicularly at the base.“ in the description of the reproductions is extraneous information describing what is shown in the reproductions, which adds no new information to the understanding of the claimed design. Any description of the design in the specification other than a brief description of the drawing is generally not necessary, since as a general rule, the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description. See In re Freeman, 23 App. D.C. 226 (App. D.C. 1904). The above paragraph should be deleted in its entirety. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a) ll. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the exact appearance of the design cannot be fully understood for the following reasons. The base of the easy chair is not enabled by the views provided. The shape of the base and the central column is open to several interpretations based on the limited views of the design. The features could be square, round, or oval. See the annotated drawing that follows. PNG media_image1.png 671 624 media_image1.png Greyscale The shape of the seat of the easy chair is not clear from the reproductions. The first reproduction shows the seat wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, while the second view only shows the side profile. The description is simply labelled “front”, which does not distinguish between an elevation or perspective view, both of which could be supported by the information available. Without another view to confirm the shape of the seat, it is impossible to determine the design’s exact shape. See annotated drawing that follows. PNG media_image2.png 694 757 media_image2.png Greyscale Features that were found to be non-enabled may be converted to broken line and removed from the claim by adding a broken line statement preceding the claim. It is noted that it may not be possible to overcome the rejection without introducing new matter. All portions of the design have been found to be non-enabled, and there are only 2 reproductions in the disclosure. Amended drawings Any amended replacement drawing sheet shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "REPLACEMENT SHEET" or "NEW SHEET" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing new drawings. Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Contact Information All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP § 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or in person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO ("registered practitioner") or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become "of record," a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 "Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO," available at www.uspto.gov/ patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form" (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP § 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below. When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence: When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK DAVID WOLFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. 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, Amber R Stiles can be reached on (571)272-7611. 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. /MARK DAVID WOLFLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2931
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1121344
Chair
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent D1113193
Chair
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1113273
Door for kitchen furniture
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1113211
Chair
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1113235
Chair
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
97%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+3.1%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 177 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