Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/519,901

VEHICLE-BODY FRONT STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 27, 2023
Examiner
O'NEILL, MATTHEW JAMES
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Subaru Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
129 granted / 163 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 163 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura (US20190126989A1), henceforth referred to as Okura, in view of Mildner (US20130043087A1), henceforth referred to as Mildner. Regarding claim 1, Okura discloses a vehicle-body front structure comprising: a motor unit configured to drive a vehicle (Figure 7: vehicle electric motor 9 comprises electric machine unit 22), main frames provided on opposite sides of the vehicle in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle and extending in a vehicle front-rear direction of the vehicle (Figures 7 and 11: side members 12A and 12B provided on opposite sides of the vehicle and extend in the vehicle front-rear direction), a motor support beam having a projected area larger than a projected area of the motor unit in a plan view (Figure 9: crossmember 20 has a larger projected area than electric machine unit 22), the motor support beam being fixed with the motor unit on a vehicle lower side of the motor support beam (Figure 8: electric machine unit 22 is fixed on the lower side of crossmember 20), and a support beam bracket fixing the motor support beam to the main frames (Figure 8: brackets 32A and 32B fixing crossmember 20 to side members 12A and 12B respectively), wherein the support beam bracket is fixed to the motor support beam through a first fastening part (Paragraph [0079]: "The supporting bracket 32A is provided with . . . fastening holes 74B, 74D that are positionally aligned with the fastening holes 21I, 21J of the MC cross-member 20 and are bolted to the fastening holes 21I, 21J"), is fixed, on a vehicle lower side of the support beam bracket, to the main frames through a second fastening part (Paragraph [0079]: "The supporting bracket 32A is provided with fastening holes 74A, 74C that are positionally aligned with fastening holes 15A, 15B of the front side member 12A and are bolted to the fastening holes 15A, 15B"). Okura does not teach a strut tower reinforcement. However, Okura does disclose that the support beam bracket attached to the strut tower (Paragraph [0117]: "The second bracket piece 46 is also provided with an extension portion 46 a that greatly extends outward such that the second bracket piece 46 can also be fastened to another member (for example, suspension tower)"). Further, Mildner discloses a strut tower reinforcement extending in a vehicle up-down direction of the vehicle on a vehicle front side of a strut tower that supports a suspension of a front wheel of the vehicle, and reinforcing rigidity of the strut tower (Figure 2: stiffening element 9), a support beam bracket fixing the motor support beam to the strut tower reinforcement (Figure 2: bearing pedestal 12 is fixed to stiffening element 9 via fastening joint 14), and the support beam bracket is fixed, on a vehicle upper side of the support beam bracket, to the strut tower reinforcement through a third fastening part (Figure 2: bearing pedestal 12 is fixed to stiffening element 9 via third fastening joint 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chassis of Okura with the reinforcement of Mildner in order to provide the engine mounting location with high strength and rigidity (Paragraph [0008]). Regarding claim 3, Okura as modified discloses the motor support beam comprises a vehicle front side edge at which a protective wall bent around a vehicle front side of the motor unit is disposed (Figure 6: front wall portion of crossmember 20 is disposed to bend around a front of electrical machine unit 22). Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura and Mildner as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yasuhara (US-20160159399-A1), henceforth referred to as Yasuhara. Regarding claim 2, Okura does not teach an upper frame. Yasuhara discloses an upper frame disposed on a vehicle upper side of the main frames so as to surround a periphery of a vehicle-body front part of the vehicle (Figure 1: upper frame formed by frame members 19, 21, and 22 to surround a periphery of the front of the vehicle). Mildner further discloses the strut tower reinforcement is disposed on the vehicle front side of the strut tower, comprises a vehicle upper part joined to the upper frame, and comprises a vehicle lower part joint to the main frames (Figure 1: stiffening element 9 is disposed on a front side of the strut tower, and connects upper frame 4 to frame side member 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chassis of Okura with the upper frame of Yasuhara in order to provide additional chassis strength and rigidity. Regarding claim 4, Okura as modified discloses the motor support beam comprises a vehicle front-side edge at which a protective wall bent around a vehicle front side of the motor unit is disposed (Figure 6: front wall portion of crossmember 20 is disposed to bend around a front of electrical machine unit 22). Cited Prior Art not Relied Upon The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Cunningham (US-20130248275-A1), which discloses an vehicle electric motor that is supported on vehicle frame rails. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /MATTHEW JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594853
WORK VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595003
Common Chassis for Ground Support Tractors
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570105
ARTICULATING DRIVE SHAFT ARRANGEMENT FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559158
SINGLE ACTUATOR TRANSLATING AND TELESCOPING STEERING COLUMN ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552651
LIFT DEVICE WITH DEPLOYABLE OPERATOR STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.8%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 163 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