Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/841,270

A SEAT PAN FOR AN AIRCRAFT SEAT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Examiner
BONZELL, PHILIP J
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Safran Seats Gb Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
680 granted / 865 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 865 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For Claim 1, 4, and 7 each of these claim attempt to further define the claimed seat pan with language to the seat cushion. However, the claims are limited to “a seat pan” as defined by the claims. As such it is not clear if the seat cushion language is required as it is not part of the “seat pan”. Therefore the claims are indefinite. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1. The Examiner suggests Defining the Claim as a seat comprising a seat pan and a seat cushion. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the front edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the front edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the adjacent vertical extending walls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. (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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hocks (EP #3862221). For Claim 1, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0076 and 0103] of Hocks ‘221 disclose a seat pan (1) for an aircraft seat, the seat pan being arranged to be fixed to an aircraft seat base and to support a seat cushion of the aircraft seat, wherein the seat pan comprises a corrugated portion (2) formed of a deformable material, the corrugated portion comprising a plurality of corrugations. For Claim 2, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0046 and 0101] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the corrugated portion is formed from a metal sheet. For Claim 3, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0076 and 0103] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the seat pan further comprises a planar portion. For Claim 4, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0076 and 0103] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the planar portion is arranged to be positioned under a front part of the seat cushion, and the corrugated portion is arranged to be positioned further from the front part of the seat cushion than the planar portion. For Claim 5, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0100-0102] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the planar portion and the corrugated portion are constructed separately and fixed together to form the seat pan. For Claim 6, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0070-0071 and 0076] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the corrugation of the corrugated portion extend from a first side to a second side of the seat pan, the first side and the second side extending between the front edge and back edge of the seat pan. For Claim 7, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0070-0071 and 0076] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the longitudinal axis of each corrugation is parallel to the front edge of the seat cushion when the seat cushion is in position on the seat pan. For Claim 8, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0070-0071 and 0076] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the corrugation are parallel to each other. For Claim 9, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0076 and 0103] of Hocks ‘221 disclose that the distance between the adjacent vertically extending walls of adjacent corrugations is the same as the distance between the vertically extending walls of each of the adjacent corrugations (according). For claim 10, figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0076 and 0103] of Hocks ‘221 disclose an aircraft seat comprising a seat pan of Claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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. /PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/4/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600468
VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING (VTOL) WINGED AIR VEHICLE WITH COMPLEMENTARY ANGLED ROTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595077
SATELLITE CONSTELLATION FORMING SYSTEM, DEBRIS REMOVAL SCHEME, SATELLITE CONSTELLATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEME, GROUND FACILITY, SPACE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SPACE OBJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, AND OPERATION METHOD FOR AVOIDING COLLISION DURING ORBITAL DESCENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595058
AIRCRAFT GALLEY MOVEABLE COUNTERTOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589855
WINDOW MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR SNAP AND CLICK MOUNTING OF A WINDOW ASSEMBLY OF AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559220
BLENDED WING BODY AIRCRAFT AIRFRAME AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 865 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