Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/813,548

PNEUMATIC AND VIBRATION PROVIDING DEVICE FOR VEHICLE SEAT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Examiner
WHITE, RODNEY BARNETT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Transys Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1790 granted / 2169 resolved
+30.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
2206
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2169 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
February 8, 2026 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 09/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0121492 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0025365 A1) in view of Onuma et al. (U.S Patent No. 10,220,756 B2). PNG media_image1.png 246 282 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 248 274 media_image2.png Greyscale Washington et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a pneumatic and vibration generating device for a vehicle seat, the pneumatic and vibration generating device comprising: a first air bladder 100 mounted in a seatback 17 and configured to be inflated and deflated in the seatback 17; and a vibration motor 102 disposed on a front portion of the first air bladder and configured to selectively generate vibration, wherein the vibration motor has a fusion sheet 118 provided on one surface side thereof, and wherein the fusion sheet has an edge portion entirely fixed to the first air bladder by an adhesive but does not specify that the fusion sheet is fixed to the first air bladder by thermal fusion. PNG media_image3.png 170 260 media_image3.png Greyscale However, Onuma et al. teach the concept of securing an air bladder 30 to backrest of a vehicle seat using a fusion sheet 64 that is capable of being secured to the vibration motor or vice versa; wherein the fusion sheet has an edge portion entirely fixed to the first air bladder by thermal fusion.. As for claim 2, Onuma et al. teach that the fusion sheet is formed to extend wider than the one surface side of the vibration motor, and the edge portion of the fusion sheet is bonded to, by the thermal fusion, a front portion of the first air bladder and a rear portion of the first air bladder. As for claim 3, Onuma et al. teach that the fusion sheet is molded using a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material (see the specification at column 6, lines 39-43 and 50-5a where it reads “ The mounting pieces 64 are formed from a resin material such as, for example, polyurethane or the like, and are joined to the side portions at the transverse direction both sides of the large diameter portion 26 by adhesion, fusion, or the like.” and “Note that, instead of this structure, the airbag 30A and the pair of mounting pieces 64 may be formed of a resin material by integral molding.”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to secure the vibration motor 30, as taught by NOSO et al, to a fusion sheet by thermal fusion, as taught by Onuma et al., since the thermal fusion process of joining the fusion sheet to the vibration motor would be stronger than a simple adhesive and the thermal fusion would also withstand the vibrations generated by the vibration motor. As for claim 4, Washington et al. further comprises a second air bladder provided on a rear end surface of the first air bladder and configured to be inflated and deflated, wherein the second air bladder is operatively connected to the first air bladder so as to enable air to flow therebetween (see Fig. 1 where two air bladders 108 operatively connected to one another) Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOSO et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054518 A1) in view of Onuma et al. (U.S Patent No. 10,220,756 B2). PNG media_image4.png 188 250 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 228 338 media_image5.png Greyscale NOSO et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a pneumatic and vibration generating device for a vehicle seat, the pneumatic and vibration generating device comprising: a first air bladder 23 mounted in a seatback 12 and configured to be inflated and deflated in the seatback 12; and a vibration motor 30 disposed on a front portion of the first air bladder and configured to selectively generate vibration, but is silent as to whether the vibration motor has a fusion sheet provided on one surface side thereof or that the fusion sheet is fixed to the first air bladder by thermal fusion. However, Onuma et al. teach the concept of securing an air bladder 30 to backrest of a vehicle seat using a fusion sheet 64 that is capable of being secured to the vibration motor or vice versa. As for claim 2, Onuma et al. teach that the fusion sheet is formed to extend wider than the one surface side of the vibration motor, and the edge portion of the fusion sheet is bonded to, by the thermal fusion, a front portion of the first air bladder and a rear portion of the first air bladder. As for claim 3, Onuma et al. teach that the fusion sheet is molded using a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material (see the specification at column 6, lines 39-43 and 50-5a where it reads “ The mounting pieces 64 are formed from a resin material such as, for example, polyurethane or the like, and are joined to the side portions at the transverse direction both sides of the large diameter portion 26 by adhesion, fusion, or the like.” and “Note that, instead of this structure, the airbag 30A and the pair of mounting pieces 64 may be formed of a resin material by integral molding.”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to secure the vibration motor 30, as taught by NOSO et al, to a fusion sheet by thermal fusion, as taught by Onuma et al., since the thermal fusion process of joining the fusion sheet to the vibration motor would be stronger than a simple adhesive and the thermal fusion would also withstand the vibrations generated by the vibration motor. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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 R. 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. /Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594862
BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593917
FOLDING RECLINER WITH GUIDE MECHANISMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588769
CONVERTIBLE INFANT CHAIR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588763
SEATING FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589683
SEAT PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2169 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