Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/903,416

Apparatus for Connecting Loading Part of Vehicle

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 06, 2022
Examiner
FRICK, EMMA K
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 495 resolved
+18.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
514
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 495 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION In the reply filed 12/11/2025, claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are currently pending. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered. 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grottke (US 2020/0140021) in view of Browne (US 8,256,829). Regarding claim 1, Grottke teaches: an apparatus comprising: a loading part (3) for a vehicle; a drone unit (including at least element 2) configured to apply a driving force of the vehicle (the drone unit is configured to apply driving force at least because it supports/includes drive components of the vehicle), wherein the drone unit and the loading part are connectable to each other; a connecting unit (6) positioned on a lower side of the loading part; and a receiving unit (5) positioned on an upper side of the drone unit and corresponding to the connecting unit; wherein at least a part of the connecting unit is insertable into the receiving unit (Fig. 4 shows the connecting unit inserted into the receiving unit), and wherein the inserted connecting unit is configured to change in volume at a predetermined position depending on a temperature. Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 2-4. Grottke fails to disclose the connecting unit being made of a shape memory alloy. Browne teaches a connecting unit (10) made of a shape memory alloy, the connecting unit being insertable into a receiving unit (12), wherein the inserted connecting unit is configured to change in volume at a predetermined position depending on a temperature. See Figs. 3, 5, and see column 7, line 40 through column 8, line 29. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the connecting unit from Grottke made of a shape memory alloy, as suggested by Browne; the motivation being: to ensure a snug and conforming fit between interconnecting parts when assembled. Further, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the connecting unit being made of a shape memory alloy as an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material. Regarding claim 2, Grottke, as modified, further teaches: wherein the connecting unit comprises: an upper side pipe (6) positioned on a lower surface of the loading part; and a guide part (61) protruding from a lower surface of the upper side pipe and insertable into the receiving unit. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 4. Regarding claim 3, Grottke, as modified, further teaches: wherein the receiving unit comprises: a lower side pipe (5) positioned on a lower side of the upper side pipe in a connection state; and a slot part (7) positioned in the lower side pipe and configured to receive the guide part. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 4. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-30 are allowed. Claims 4-10 are 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. Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter may be found in a prior action (3/26/2025). Response to Remarks Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered. Amendments to the claims necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection. Arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's arguments were made with respect to the claims, as amended, and have been rejected/addressed as provided above. Specifically, Applicant asserts Grottke fails to teach claim 1, as amended. In the discussion of claim 1, above, Browne is relied upon for addressing the new/amended limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F. 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, Allen Shriver can be reached on (303) 297-4324. 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. /EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594979
FOLDING STROLLER ADAPTABLE FOR SINGLE OR DOUBLE OCCUPANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583555
ELECTRIC BALANCE BIKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583307
VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565251
A-FRAME WIRE PULL CART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565255
Stroller Frame having a Push-Pull Function
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 495 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