Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 19/176,478

KINETIC SEAT ASSEMBLIES HAVING DAMPERS FOR FIXED COMPONENTS AND MOVABLE COMPONENTS INCLUDING LATERAL DAMPING MECHANISMS AND FLUID RESERVOIRS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 11, 2025
Priority
Jul 29, 2021 — provisional 63/227,172 +1 more
Examiner
ISLAM, SYED A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Stabilus GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
787 granted / 1159 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.7%
+16.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1159 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,304,369. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-27 of the US patent discloses all the limitations of the claims 1-20. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There are many similarities and dissimilarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Mazelsky (4,150,805). However, Mazelsky fails to disclose a first end of the first lateral damper and the second lateral damper is coupled to the primary seat back frame and an opposite second end of the first lateral damper and the second lateral damper is permitted to move freely relative to the secondary seat back frame as claimed in claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Mazelsky fails to disclose a pair of lateral dampers extending between the primary seat frame and the secondary seat frame; and a first fluid reservoir for providing a fluid into the pair of lateral dampers, the first fluid reservoir operable to control a rate at which fluid is provided to and drawn out of the pair of lateral dampers to control a damping effect. Regarding claim 18, Mazelsky fails to disclose a pair of vertical dampers extending between the secondary seat frame and the primary seat frame; and a fluid reservoir for providing a fluid into the pair of vertical dampers to control a rate at which fluid is provided to and drawn out of the pair of vertical dampers. No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm. 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. /SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746866
SEATING ASSEMBLY HAVING LOWER LEG SUPPORT
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746865
PNEUMATIC BLADDER ARRANGEMENT FOR NECKREST
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12733752
APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND KITS FOR A CHILD ACTIVITY CENTER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722544
CHILD SEAT WITH RECLINE MECHANISM
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721445
COMPUTER WORKSTATION
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.2%)
2y 4m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1159 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