Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/755,528

BASE UNIT

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Examiner
HESTON, JUSTIN MICHAEL
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Safran Seats
OA Round
4 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
166 granted / 205 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
232
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 1/16/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons: On page 6 of Applicant’s remarks filed 1/16/2025, Applicant asserts “Applicant submits that Ozaki fails to teach or suggest at least "a frame comprising at least one elongate member" and "a panel" where "the frame and the panel are mechanically connected to one another" as required by claim 1, for example, and as similarly recited in claim 16.” Examiner asserts Figure 5 of Ozaki demonstrates a frame (element 20), comprising at least one elongate member (element 250), and a panel (element 170), where the frame and the panel are mechanically connected to one another (as seen in Figure 5) under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. An annotated Figure 5 may be found below: PNG media_image1.png 315 397 media_image1.png Greyscale Given these reasons, claims 1 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozaki et al. (US 20210114735 A1). Regarding claim 1, Ozaki teaches a base unit for an aircraft seat unit, the base unit comprising: a frame (Figures 4-5, 11, element 20) comprising at least one elongate member (Figures 4-5, 11, element 250); a panel (element 170); wherein the frame and the panel are mechanically connected to one another (Figure 5), such that the frame and the panel define a mounting structure for an aircraft seat (element 160) and such that the aircraft seat is on a first side of the panel (as depicted in Figure 7); and wherein the frame and the panel define a storage space on a second side of the panel and below the mounting structure (Figures 4-5, and 11, element 242), wherein the base unit comprises a forward side and a rear side opposite from the forward side (inasmuch as applicant has claimed), wherein the mounting structure extends between the forward side and the rear side (inasmuch as applicant has claimed), wherein at least one of the forward side or the rear side of the base unit defines an opening to the storage space (Figures 4-5, 11), and wherein the storage space is approximately cuboidal (Figures 4-5, 11). Regarding claim 2, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one elongate member comprises a metal material (¶[0008, 0031]). Regarding claim 3, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one elongate member is extruded (inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Regarding claim 4, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a first elongate member and second elongate member (elements 230 and 240 are elongate inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Regarding claim 5, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein the first elongate member is mechanically attached to the second elongate member by the panel (as depicted in Figure 4 and 5). Regarding claim 6, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the panel comprises a honeycomb structure (¶ [0041]). Regarding claim 7, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the base unit comprises a plurality of panels (elements 230, 240, 330, 160 may all be construed as a plurality of panels). Regarding claim 8, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising one or more connection points, the connection points configured to enable an aircraft seat to be connected to the base unit (¶ [0050] indicates that the seat is eventually attached. Examiner asserts this would require one or more attachment points. Figures 1 and 7 depict the seat connected to the base unit after attachment). Regarding claim 9, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a seat connection panel (elements 230, 240, 330, 160 may all be construed as a plurality of panels). Regarding claim 10, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising bracing configured to further increase a structural rigidity and/or a strength of the base unit (Figures 1, 5, 7, and 12 all depict a plurality of finishing panels, arm rests, and additional shell pieces, all of which would increase structural rigidity and the strength of the unit inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Regarding claim 11, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, comprising one or more connection points being located on a seat connection panel and/or bracing, the connection points configured to enable an aircraft seat to be connected to the base unit (¶ [0050] indicates that the seat is eventually attached. Examiner asserts this would require one or more attachment points. More, ¶ [0050] refers to element 160 as “an upper seat support structure”. Figures 1 and 7 depict the seat connected to the base unit after attachment). Regarding claim 12, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a console panel mounted to an upper portion of the base unit the console panel configured to provide an armrest and/or table, and/or storage options for a passenger (as depicted in Figure 7). Regarding claim 13, Ozaki teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising one or more screens to hide structural elements of the base unit from a passenger (element 210). Regarding claim 14, Ozaki teaches an aircraft seat unit, the aircraft seat unit comprising a base unit according to claim 1, and an aircraft seat mounted to the base unit (Figure 7). Regarding claim 15, Ozaki teaches an aircraft seat unit according to claim 14, wherein the base unit comprises one or more connection points located on a seat connection panel and/or bracing, and the aircraft seat is connected to the connection points (¶ [0050] indicates that the seat is eventually attached. Examiner asserts this would require one or more attachment points. More, ¶ [0050] refers to element 160 as “an upper seat support structure”. Figures 1 and 7 depict the seat connected to the base unit after attachment). Regarding claim 16, Ozaki teaches a base unit for an aircraft seat unit, the base unit comprising: a frame (Figures 4-5, 11, element 20) comprising at least one elongate member (Figures 4-5, 11, element 250); a panel (element 170); wherein the frame and the panel are mechanically connected to one another (Figure 5), such that the frame and the panel define a mounting structure for an aircraft seat (element 160) and such that the aircraft seat is on a first side of the panel (as depicted in Figure 7); and wherein the frame and the panel define a storage space below the panel of the mounting structure (Figures 4-5, and 11, element 242) and which is approximately cuboidal and accessible to a user of the aircraft seat unit from a front side and/or a rear side of the base unit (Figures 4-5, and 11, element 242), and wherein the frame and the panel further defines an open section with an opening defined on a rear side of the base unit (Figure 11, element 242), wherein the open section is configured to allow a rear side passenger to place their feet within the open section (configurable inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only.. 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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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. /JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644 /TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599236
BENCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600434
Mooring Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589874
Passenger Service Unit Passenger Assist Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583586
TANK ASSEMBLY AND HELICOPTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583558
Method and Apparatus for Maintaining Energy Production in an Offshore Wind Farm
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 205 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