Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 35/526,200

Hammock stand

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Priority
Jul 07, 2025 — CN 202530393369.2
Examiner
KLOBERG, KATELIN G
Art Unit
2951
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Ningbo YISUN GRAND IMP.& EXP. Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allowance Rate
354 granted / 367 resolved
+36.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
369
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
71.3%
+31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 367 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
Detailed Correspondence Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Benefit of Foreign Document 2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application number CN202530393369.2 filed in the People’s Republic of China on July 7, 2025. However, Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign 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), 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 USC 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. Applicant is advised that certified documents as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(f) are not permitted to be filed via the Patent Center. (See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(2)). Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 102(a)(1) 3. The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the “Homgava Universal 2-Person Hammock” reference (Non-Patent Literature Document Citation No. U), dated August 22, 2024 and hereby referred to as “Homgava”, because 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. [AltContent: textbox (CLAIMED DESIGN)] PNG media_image1.png 1276 967 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (“HOMGAVA” REFERENCE)] 8. The shape and appearance of the “Homgava” reference is substantially the same as that of the claimed design, Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, supra. “The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway, supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Conclusion 9. The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1). Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katelin G Kloberg whose telephone number is (408)918-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7am to 3pm, Pacific Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Rempfer can be reached at (571)270-0248. 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. Discussion of the Merits of the Application 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 https://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. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at katelin.kloberg@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner' s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. 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 Patent Center, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions Note that correspondence received will appear in Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. /KATELIN G KLOBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 2932
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 16, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1122012
BENCH
4y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent D1114518
Baby bed
2y 12m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent D1111619
Table
1y 6m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent D1107441
Sofa-bed
1y 0m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent D1104519
SOFA-BED
3y 4m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
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
96%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+4.0%)
1y 10m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 367 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