Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/503,332

VEHICULAR SHOCK ABSORBER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Examiner
GUTMAN, HILARY L
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
1021 granted / 1420 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1464
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1420 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Examiner’s Comments 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 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. Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 5, a comma should be inserted after “welding” to separate the clause from the next. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al. For claim 1, Deng et al. (2014/0265429) discloses a vehicular shock absorber (16) that is to be mounted on a vehicular exterior side with respect to a vehicular interior component (18,FIG.4), the vehicular shock absorber comprising: a low rigidity portion (rearmost portion of 16, FIG.4) including a first plate portion (26) that has a first vehicular interior side surface facing a vehicular interior side, and a first mount portion (at 46,46,46, all on the left-hand side of FIG.6) that extends from the first vehicular interior side surface toward a vehicular interior side and is to be fixed to the vehicular interior component (18): a high rigidity portion (frontmost portion of 16, FIG.6) having rigidity higher than rigidity of the low rigidity portion, the high rigidity portion including a second plate portion (32) that has a second vehicular interior side surface facing the vehicular interior side, and a second mount portion (at 46, right-hand side of FIG.6) that extends from the second vehicular interior side surface toward the vehicular interior side and is to be fixed to the vehicular interior component; and PNG media_image1.png 225 652 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 549 609 media_image2.png Greyscale a first connection portion (30) extending between and connecting the first plate portion of the low rigidity portion and the second plate portion of the high rigidity portion. PNG media_image3.png 634 849 media_image3.png Greyscale For claim 2, a second connection portion that connects the first mount portion (46) of the low rigidity portion and the high rigidity portion. PNG media_image4.png 586 692 media_image4.png Greyscale For claim 9, the second connection portion includes a first extending portion and a second extending portion, the first extending portion extends from the first mount portion (upper left corner 49 of FIG.6) toward the high rigidity portion, and the second extending portion (sidewall) extends from the first extending portion to the second plate portion (32). For claim 10, the first mount portion (upper left corner 49 of FIG.6) includes a base (the perimeter encompassing/surrounding hole 46) and an extending portion (28), the extending portion (28) extends from the first plate portion (26) toward the vehicular interior side, the base is at an extending end of the extending portion (28), and the first extending portion (as indicated in the marked-up copy of FIG.6 above) of the second connection portion extends from the base (upper left corner 46, FIG.6) to the second plate portion. For claim 3, the first connection portion includes a low rigidity plate portion and a high rigidity plate portion that is disposed closer to the high rigidity portion than the low rigidity plate portion is. PNG media_image5.png 634 849 media_image5.png Greyscale For claim 5, the vehicular interior component is a vehicular door trim (FIG.2), the low rigidity portion is disposed corresponding to and on the vehicular exterior side with respect to a hip (FIG.3) of an occupant who is seated on a seat of a vehicle, and the high rigidity portion is disposed corresponding to and on the vehicular exterior side with respect to a thigh (FIG.3) of the occupant. PNG media_image6.png 365 652 media_image6.png Greyscale For claim 6, the first connection portion is a plate member that is bent along a line between the low rigidity plate portion and the high rigidity plate portion (as seen in the marked-up copy of FIG.4 above). For claim 7, the first connection portion is a plate member (as seen in marked-up copy of FIG.4 above), the low rigidity plate portion extends from the first plate portion (26) and the high rigidity plate portion extends from the second plate portion (32) and the low rigidity plate portion and the high rigidity plate portion extend so as to be closer to each other (see how the plates converge toward the inside (inboard) of the vehicle), and extending ends of the low rigidity plate portion and the high rigidity plate portion are joined together to form the plate member. For claim 8, the first connection portion (as seen above) is bent to protrude toward the vehicular interior side. For claim 4, the high rigidity portion (front most portion of 16) includes a third mount portion (46, right-hand most side of FIG.6) that extends from the second plate portion (32) toward the vehicular interior side and is to be fixed to the vehicular interior component with a mounting structure (46) that differs from that of a mounting structure (46) of the second mount portion (in that the two mounting structures 46 are separate/distinct holes 46 on the right-hand most side of FIG.6). For claim 12, an extending length of the second mounting portion is smaller than an extending length of the first mounting portion (see how the high rigidity portion is “shorter” then the low rigidity portion as seen in the cross sectional view of FIG.4. For claim 14, the low rigidity portion is disposed on a vehicular rear side with respect to the high rigidity portion. For claim 15, the first connection portion is a plate member that extends in an extending direction and has a vehicular interior-side surface (inboard in FIG.4) facing the vehicular interior side and a vehicular exterior-side surface facing the vehicular exterior side, the first connection portion is disposed such that the vehicular interior-side surface is opposite the vehicular interior component (18), and the first connection portion is bent at a middle with respect to the extending direction (see FIG.4 above). For claim 11, Deng et al. provide the first mount portion (46, left-hand most side of FIG.6) including an extending end portion and a hole that is through the extending end portion and through which a projection (implicit) of the vehicular interior component is to be inserted to fix the first mount portion to the vehicular interior component, the high rigidity portion (front most part of 16) includes a third mount portion (46, right-hand most side of FIG.6) that extends from the second plate portion (32) toward the vehicular interior side. Deng et al. fail to provide the specifics of the attachment via holes 46 and specifically lacks the projection inserted ‘with welding’ as recited. However, the welding limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Deng et al. further provide the third mount portion includes an extending end portion and a stopper hole (46) that is through the extending end portion and in which a stopper projection of the vehicular interior component is capable of being fitted and to fix the third mount portion to the vehicular interior component with the stopper projection being stopped by a hole edge of the hole. Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a subcombination and not a combination, therefore the structural limitations (the hole 46) required of Deng et al. is present. Examiner asserts the hole is capable of performing the function recited. The invention need not include the specifics of the stopper projection itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. as applied to claim 1 above. For claim 13, Deng et al. fails to disclose an area of a vehicular exterior-side surface of the second plate portion is smaller than an area of a vehicular exterior-side surface of the first plate portion. Deng et al. disclose [0030] that any “appropriate known method (or combination of methods) for creating variations in stiffness over the vertical and/or longitudinal dimensions of pusher 16 may be employed” including “variations in material thickness and/or properties, stiffening ribs, holes, etc.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the surface area of the second plate portion to be smaller in surface area than that of the first plate portion as an obvious matter of design choice based on desired stiffness criteria (Deng et al., [0030]) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, where a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612BI
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600285
TRACTOR UNITS FOR TRANSPORTING ELONGATED LOADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600211
VEHICLE WINDOW PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576892
Goods Wagon for Transporting Goods and Basin for Such a Goods Wagon
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576967
SOLENOID ACTUATED SEMI-AUTOMATIC AUXILIARY GUIDE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570204
CARGO STRAP WITH LOAD STATUS TRANSMITTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1420 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