Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/047,075

SEAT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 06, 2025
Priority
Feb 08, 2024 — JP 2024-017694
Examiner
WHITE, RODNEY BARNETT
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyota Boshoku Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
1816 granted / 2200 resolved
+22.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
2218
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2200 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
July 15, 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 . 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 1-5 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. In claim 1, line 3, “the pad thickness direction” lacks antecedent basis. On line5, “the outside” lacks antecedent basis. What does the applicant mean by “the outside”? In claim 6, line 7, “the outside” lacks antecedent basis. What does the applicant mean by “the outside”? In claim 4, line 2, should the word - - a - - be inserted in front of “side surface”? The aforementioned problems render the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required. 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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,077,074 B2) in view of Wolas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0276463 A1). PNG media_image1.png 326 232 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 240 226 media_image2.png Greyscale Ikuta et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a seat comprising: a seat pad having a central pad 4 and two side pads 5, wherein the central pad comprises a plurality of ventilation through holes 14 having outwardly openings facing the side pad in a seat width direction in a shape penetrating in the pad thickness direction with respect to the central pad but does not teach a first abutting member covering the ventilation through hole from the outside in the seat width direction. PNG media_image3.png 222 200 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 238 162 media_image4.png Greyscale However, Wolas et al. teach the concept of using an abutting member 110 for covering a ventilation through hole from the outside in the seat width direction. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat, as taught by Ikuta et al., to include an abutting member, as taught by Wolas et al, since it would ensure that most of the air from the ventilation system is directed toward the occupant of the seat. As for Claim 2, Ikuta et al. teach a flow path cover 16 being arranged adjacent to the back surface of the central pad for covering an air distribution groove formed along the back surface of the central pad. As for Clams 6 and 9, Wolas et al. teach a blower configured to draw air from the seat pad; is configured to draw out hot air from a front side of the seat via the plurality of ventilation through holes. (see paragraph [0056 where it reads “…..the air is drawn in from away from the air curtain C generated by the first and second air vents 32, 34 so that the generated air curtain C is not “wrapped” about the occupant. The conditioned air is then provided to the first and second air vents 32, 34 and into the vehicle cabin without further obstruction.”). As for Clams 7, Wolas et al. teach that the plurality of ventilation through holes, at least in part, lines up on both upper edges of the central pad so as to open outward in the seat width direction; where in the plurality of ventilation through holes, at least in part, lines up apart inwardly from the edge of the central portion. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. 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

Feb 06, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Jul 20, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12686301
HEAD PROTECTION DEVICE AND CARRIER
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686456
TELESCOPIC SEAT POST FOR BICYCLE
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12677952
SEAT BACK FOR AN OFFICE CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673587
SEAT FOR VEHICLE
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667191
WEIGHT RESPONSIVE CHAIR
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.8%)
1y 8m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2200 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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