Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/760,677

CONTOURED SEAT SUSPENSION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Examiner
BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
GM Global Technology Operations LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
958 granted / 1180 resolved
+29.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1231
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1180 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claims 1-20 are pending. Election/Restrictions Claims 6-10, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/9/26. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching the three species would not present a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive at least because upholstery springs are found in B60N 2/70 and pertinent subclasses, however, seat suspension devices and dampening means are found in B60N 2/50 and B60N 2/522 thereby requiring additional/different search and/or consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. (US 6929324) (“Enomoto”). Enomoto discloses a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame. As concerns claim 3, Enomoto discloses wherein the suspension comprises a plurality of springs (fig. 2: 21). As concerns claims 4 and 18, wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along opposing sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure (as shown in fig. 2). As concerns claim 16, Enomoto discloses a vehicle comprising: a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame. 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) 2, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Prince et al. (US 6908159) (“Prince”). As concerns claims 2 and 17, Enomoto does not teach wherein the rigid seat support structure comprises an ergonomic shape. However, Prince teaches an ergonomic panel configured to contour to the user (fig. 46: 21), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rigid support structure of Enomoto to be an ergonomic panel in order to provide additional comfort to the user. As concerns claim 11, Enomoto teaches a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame. Enomoto does not teach wherein the rigid seat support structure comprises an ergonomic shape. However, Prince teaches an ergonomic panel configured to contour to the user (fig. 46: 21), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rigid support structure of Enomoto to be an ergonomic panel in order to provide additional comfort to the user. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Colsanti et al. (US 5076643) (“Colsanti”). Enomoto does not teach wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along four sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure. However, Colsanti teaches a similar rigid panel support for a seatback having springs extending from all four sides of the periphery (fig. 1: 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide springs from an additional side of the support structure of Enomoto in order to provide the desired amount of flex/support to the seat. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Prince and further in view of Colsanti. Enomoto, as modified, does not teach wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along four sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure. However, Colsanti teaches a similar rigid panel support for a seatback having springs extending from all four sides of the periphery (fig. 1: 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide springs from an additional side of the support structure of Enomoto in order to provide the desired amount of flex/support to the seat. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm. 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 5712726670. 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. /TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600478
RECLINING SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600277
BACKREST FOR A VEHICLE SEAT AND A METHOD FOR MOUNTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595060
SEAT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588766
SEAT COMPRISING A FRAME AND A COVER, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583366
VEHICLE SEAT
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+7.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1180 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