Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/358,262

VEHICULAR ENGAGEMENT MEMBER

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jul 25, 2023
Examiner
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
378 granted / 570 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
605
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection. This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection. Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claim 5 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: Invention I. Claims 1-4, drawn to a vehicle engagement member, classified in F16B 5/126. Invention II. Claim 5, drawn to a method of manufacturing, classified in B29C 45/332. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product of Invention I could be made using any method of manufacturing not specified in Invention II. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US 8,245,367), hereinafter Kato. In re. claim 1, Kato teaches a vehicular engagement member for a vehicle (vehicle body panel (1)) (fig. 1) comprising: a base portion (22); and an engagement portion (25) integrally molded with the base portion (fig. 2), the engagement portion including a rectangular tube portion (31) protruding from the base portion in an extension direction (fig. 2) and an engagement claw portion (35) protruding from the rectangular tube portion in a protruding direction orthogonal to the extension direction (fig. 2), the engagement portion being engageable with a vehicle through the engagement claw portion (fig. 5A), wherein the base portion has a wall portion (38) disposed opposing the rectangular tube portion and spaced from the rectangular tube portion in the protruding direction (fig. 2), and the wall portion protruding from the base portion in the extension direction (fig. 2), and the wall portion has a space portion at a position opposing the engagement claw portion (recessed space between diameters of elements 38 and 39) (fig. 2), the space portion being formed by a recess in the wall portion (fig. 2). In re. claim 2, Kato teaches the vehicular engagement member according to claim 1, wherein the wall portion has a flange portion (39) formed at an edge portion of the space portion (fig. 3B). In re. claim 3, Kato teaches the vehicular engagement member according to claim 1, wherein the base portion has a rib (26) formed around the engagement portion (fig. 2), and the rib is formed not to overlap with a region between the engagement portion and the space portion (at groove (27a)). In re. claim 4, Kato teaches the vehicular engagement member according to claim 1, wherein the base portion comprises: a spacer portion (26a) disposed inward in a vehicle width direction (fig. 2) of one of a bumper face and a fender of the vehicle (as the installation location fails to further define the engagement member); a portion (22a) disposed outward in the vehicle width direction of the other one of the bumper face and the fender (fig. 1), and to which the engagement portion is integrally molded (fig. 1); and the wall portion connecting the spacer portion and the portion to which the engagement portion is integrally molded (all components integrally connected in figure 2). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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. /C.D.H./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3647 /Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584322
Folding Utility Scaffold
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575475
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING PERFORMANCE FOR POSITION-SPECIFIC CONTROL OF AN AGRICULTURAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568891
PLANT GROWING SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557785
PUPPY APARTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543635
One Hand Controller for Zero Turn Mowers
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
66%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+10.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 570 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