Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/511,359

SEAT FOR A VEHICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
KIM, SHIN H
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ferrari S.p.A.
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
735 granted / 1149 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1149 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 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, 2, 4, 5, 13-16, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel Russman et al. U.S. Patent 10,821,862 B2 (Russman) in view of Hyung Min Baek et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0043805 A1 (Baek). Regarding claim 1, Russman discloses a seat (Figure 2 Element 10) for a vehicle and comprising: a cushion (Element 100), which is configured to be fixed to a floorboard of the vehicle (as shown in Figure 2) and is provided with a bearing structure (Element 70, 78), which is elastically yielding and has an at least partially net-like conformation, and with an upholstery (Element 66), which covers the bearing structure; a diffuser (Figure 4 diffusing perforations), which at least partially engages a front or rear wall of the bearing structure (Figure 4) of the cushion and can be connected to a conditioned air supply duct (Element 108) in order to introduce conditioned air into the bearing structure of the cushion; and at least one insulating element (exterior layer of Figure 4), which is an integral part of the seat (Figure 4), is arranged along a lower wall and/or a side wall of the bearing structure of the cushion, is impermeable to air in order to prevent air from flowing out and is firmly joined to the bearing structure of the cushion so as to create, with the bearing structure of the cushion, an air-tight coupling (Column 6 Lines 20-47). Russman does not direction disclose the cushion to have at least partially lattice conformation. Baek discloses a seat comprising a cushion wherein the form is at least partially a lattice conformation ([0013], Element 02, 24, 60). Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russman as taught by Baek to include Baek’s lattice formed cushion. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance the support structure and comfort of the cushion. Regarding claim 2, Russman in view of Baek discloses the seat wherein the diffuser (Figure 4 openings that disperse the air) is configured to introduce the air received from the supply duct (Element 108) into a front or rear surface of the bearing structure (Element 124, 120) of the cushion, so that said air can spread within the bearing structure of the cushion. Regarding claim 4, Russman in view of Baek discloses the seat wherein only an upper wall of the upholstery (Element 104 Figure 4) of the seat (shown in Figure 4), on which, in use, a passenger of the seat seats, has a plurality of through holes, which allow for the passage of air (Element 90). Regarding claim 5, Russman in view of Baek discloses the seat wherein the insulating element has a through opening, which allows air to flow out (Figure 4A opening for air flow Element 79, 94, 136). Regarding claims 13 and 14, Russman discloses the seat comprising the bearing structure (Element 70, 78) and a solid layer that is a foam overlapping one another (Figure 3-5). Russman does not disclose the structure to be a single net-like layer. Baek discloses a vehicle seat having a cushion with bearing structure wherein the bearing structure (Figure 5 Element 60) is a single-layer structure and consists of one single net-like layer ([0020-0024]). Regarding claim 15, Russman in view of Baek discloses the seat wherein the upholstery (Element 66, Russman) is in direct contact with the net-like layer (Element 78 and 70 of Russman modified to Element 60 of Baek). Regarding claim 16, Russman in view of Baek discloses the seat wherein the layers are glued to one another (Column 5 Lines 24-30, Russman). Regarding claim 20, Russman in view of Baek discloses road vehicle (Figure 1) comprising: a passenger compartment (shown in Figure 1) delimited, at the bottom, by a floor; at least one seat (Element 10), which is arranged in the passenger compartment and is manufactured; and an air conditioning system (Column 8 Lines 38-67) provided with a conditioned air supply duct, which ends in the diffuser of the seat. Regarding claims 21 and 22, Russman in view of Baek discloses the road vehicle wherein the bearing structure of the cushion is spaced apart from the floor and, hence, is at a distance other than zero from the floor (Figure 11); wherein the insulating element is an integral part of the seat and, hence, is separate and spaced apart from the floor. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6-12, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to claim 1 reciting limitation regarding the cushion to be …”at least partially lattice conformation…” is not directly disclose in Russman. Baek discloses a lattice structured cushion that is an obvious modification well known in the art. 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 SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM. 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 571-272-6670. 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. /SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600276
INDEPENDANT AIR CONDITIONING SEAT FOR VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597370
Flag Label
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594866
VEHICLE USER SUPPORT INCLUDING UPPER HOOD MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583373
VEHICLE HEADREST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579916
POPUP VIDEO DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+11.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1149 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