Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/408,585

STRUCTURAL BODY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 10, 2024
Examiner
DANIELS, JASON S
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
961 granted / 1119 resolved
+33.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1145
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1119 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai (US 2023/0373563) in view of Shimizu (US 2018/0312198). Regarding Claim 1, Rai discloses a structural body 110, which is integrally molded by die casting (paragraph 0029) and which is configured to form a vehicle skeleton (Fig. 1), the structural body comprising a first portion at one end side and a second portion at another end side. It is unclear as to the properties of the die cast part of Rai. Shimizu discloses an integrally cast structural body 22, 50 (paragraph 0040) in which the differing parts of the body have different metal properties due to a heat treat after casting (paragraph 0040). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the treatment method of Shimizu on the integral cast part of Rai in order to optimize the impact absorption curve to better control impact forces and protect the operator during a crash. Regarding Claim 2, Rai discloses the structural body 110 configures a vehicle front portion, and the second portion is disposed at an outer side (forward direction towards bumper), in a vehicle front-rear direction, relative to the first portion, and the second portion has a metal property that is at least one of lower strength or higher ductility than the first portion (Shimizu; paragraph 0040; discussion of change to ductility based on heat treatment). Regarding Claim 3, the second portion is a front part 120 a, b of a front side member. Regarding Claim 4, 120 a, b are crash box mounts for the front bumper. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to casting for front and rear unitary cast modules. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589685
CHASSIS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES HAVING A TRANSPORT AREA FOR A FLUID STORAGE VESSEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583281
WORKING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576700
Retractable Shields for Vehicle Tailgates
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576925
FLAP AUTOMATICALLY-LOCKING ACTIVE AIR FLAP APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576919
COMBINED DRIVETRAIN ACCESS PANEL AND FOOTREST
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1119 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