Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/380,685

CAR TAILGATE HANDLE BASE REINFORCEMENT REPAIR METHOD AND STRUCTURE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
TULLIA, STEVEN A
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hushan Autoparts Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
190 granted / 258 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
293
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 258 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 The Amendments filed October 21, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawings Objection, the Claim Objections, and the Claim Interpretation issue previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 24, 2025. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed October 21. 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's page 8 of 13 argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the two pivot pins (1111)) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Claim 1, line 4, recites “a pivot pin”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification (or drawings) are not read into the claims. Multiple pivot pins are not specifically discussed in the specification, only stating that one side of joint surface 111 is provided with a pivot pin 1111 and Figures 2;4 depicting two pivot pins. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding the Applicant’s pages 9-10 of 13 arguments about the teachings of Mitchell, US 5499851 A, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed pin, tab, joint, and flat spring features without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question. 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, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, US 5499851 A. Regarding claim 1, as the instant invention is best understood as a result of the Drawing Objection, Mitchell teaches a reinforcement and repair structure (Fig 1 depicts a reinforcement and repair structure similar to the instant invention) for a car tailgate handle base used for combining with a car tailgate handle joint (In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; “for a car tailgate handle base used for combining with a car tailgate handle joint” is a statement of intended use and Mitchell teaches the structural limitations of the apparatus), comprising: a handle base (housing 30), one surface of which is a joint surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell), and the other surface is an exposed surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell), and one side of the joint surface is provided with a pivot pin (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell); PNG media_image1.png 407 475 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell at least one reinforcing pin (upper projecting retaining tongue 92), which is arranged at an appropriate position of the joint surface (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Mitchell depicts 92 centrally arranged on 30 in a similar manner to the instant invention), and the at least one reinforcing pin is provided with a tab slot (upper pocket 140; see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell); a flexible tab (clip 70), one part of which is an insert joint (inboard projecting upper tab 82) corresponding to the internal shape of the tab slot (Annotated excerpt Fig 4 depicts 82 corresponding to the internal shape of 140), and an other part (upper clip leg 72) is raised to form a flat spring portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 4 depicts 72 raised over 82 and in the form of a flat leaf spring structure); wherein, the flexible tab is inserted into the tab slot through the joint to be combined with the reinforcing pin (Annotated excerpt Fig 4 depicts 70 inserted into 140 creating a close relationship with 92 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1a of transitive verb combine and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); wherein at least one compression locking part (extending inboard end 98) is further arranged at an appropriate position on the insert joint (82; Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell depicts 98 arranged on the upper surface of 82 at an appropriate position), and the compression locking part can prevent the insert joint from being separated from the tab slot (140; Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchel depicts 98 preventing 82 from separating upward from 140). Regarding claim 2, Mitchell teaches the reinforcement and repair structure for a car tailgate handle base according to claim 1, wherein the joint surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell) has an elastic pin (bight wall 44) on the other side of the pivot pin (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Mitchell depicts 44 to be structured as a piece of solid material used especially for fastening things together thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1a of pin and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term; col 3, lines 6-26 discuss 30 made of plastic, an elastic material, therefore 44 is an elastic pin). PNG media_image2.png 274 510 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Mitchell Regarding claim 3, Mitchell teaches the reinforcement and repair structure for a car tailgate handle base according to claim 2, wherein the joint surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 4-Mitchell) has two elastic pins (44, bight wall 47), and the at least one reinforcing pin (92) is arranged between the two elastic pins (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Mitchell depicts 92 arranged between 44 and 47). Regarding claim 4, Mitchell teaches the reinforcement and repair structure for a car tailgate handle base according to claim 1, wherein the flexible tab (70) is made of metal (col 4, lines 27-32). 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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET. 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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. /STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601200
LOCKSET WITH DOOR OPEN AND CLOSE SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601201
SURFACE MOUNTED ELECTRIC STRIKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595069
LOCK MECHANISM FOR TELESCOPIC HOLD OPEN ROD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584331
Electronic Lock assembly for Dispenser, and Assembly Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577814
ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+21.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 258 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