Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/524,315

SIDE CRASH BEAM FOR DOOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Examiner
LYNCH, CARLY W
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
FCA US LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
78 granted / 165 resolved
-4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
211
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
§112
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 165 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 . 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. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (CN 218785916) in view of Ishitobi et al. (US 2010/0084888) and Tanaka (US 2018/0208029). Regarding claim 1, Yun et al. discloses a side crash beam assembly for a vehicle (Fig. 3) comprising: a first reinforcement beam (2), the first reinforcement beam spanning a door for attachment to an inner panel (101); and a second beam (3) having a first terminal end and a second terminal end (Fig. 6), the first and second terminal ends being fixed to the inner panel (paragraph [n0057] teaches the second beam being attached to the inner panel). Yun et al. does not explicitly disclose the first reinforcement beam is formed from a sheet material, and the second beam is an elongated cylindrical tube fixed to the inner panel by a respective reinforcement member, wherein each reinforcement member includes an attachment portion that is fixed to the inner panel and a cradle portion unitary with the attachment portion and defining an arcuate seat that is configured for receipt of one of either the first terminal end or the second terminal end of the elongated cylindrical tube. Ishitobi et al., like Yun et al., teaches a side crash beam assembly, and teaches a first reinforcement beam formed from a sheet material (paragraph [0140], beam can be made from a steel sheet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side crash beam of Yun et al. to form the first reinforcement beam from a steel sheet as taught by Ishitobi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material in a sheet format that is strong enough to provide reinforcement of the vehicle door. Tanaka, like Yun et al., teaches a side crash beam assembly, and further teaches a beam (30) is an elongated cylindrical tube (Figs. 1-2) having a first terminal end (P) and a second terminal end (P) fixed to the inner panel (20) by a respective reinforcement member ((40), paragraph [0065] teaches (40) can be used at both ends), wherein each reinforcement member includes an attachment portion that is fixed to the inner panel (Figs. 1-2 show (40) attached to (20) by welding) and a cradle portion (41) unitary with the attachment portion and defining an arcuate seat that is configured for receipt of one of either the first terminal end or the second terminal end of the elongated cylindrical tube (Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Yun et al. modified by Ishitobi et al., to provide the second beam as an elongated cylindrical tube fixed to the inner panel by reinforcement members as taught by Tanaka, with a reasonable expectation of success, since providing a standard bracket connection for the beam may allow for an impact to break the bracket and have the end of the beam come off the inner panel, which would decrease the effect of the impact the beam can receive (Tanaka; paragraph [0004]). Regarding claim 2, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Tanaka) wherein the elongated cylindrical tube (30) is arc welded to the reinforcement members ((40), paragraph [0036] mentions arc- welding of (30) to (40)). Regarding claim 4, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam is an upper beam on the door (Fig. 3, upper anti-collision beam (2) is positioned as an upper beam on the door). Regarding claim 5, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam and the second beam are spaced parallel to one another (Fig. 3, (2) and (3) are parallel to each other). Regarding claim 6, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the assembly of claim 5, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam and the second beam are angled with respect to a horizontal plane (Fig. 3, (2) and (3) are angled to a horizontal plane). Regarding claim 7, Yun et al. discloses a vehicle door (Fig. 3) comprising: an inner panel (101), an outer panel (102) and a side crash beam assembly (Fig. 3); the side crash beam assembly includes a first reinforcement beam (2), the first reinforcement beam spanning the vehicle door for attachment to the inner panel (101); and a second beam (3) having a first terminal end and a second terminal end (Fig. 6), the first and second terminal ends being fixed to the inner panel (paragraph [n0057] teaches the second beam being attached to the inner panel). Yun et al. does not explicitly disclose the first reinforcement beam is formed from a sheet of material, and the second beam is an elongated cylindrical tube fixed to the inner panel by a respective reinforcement member, wherein each reinforcement member includes an attachment portion that is fixed to the inner panel and a cradle portion unitary with the attachment portion and defining an arcuate seat that is configured for receipt of one of either the first terminal end or the second terminal end of the elongated cylindrical tube. Ishitobi et al., like Yun et al., teaches a vehicle door, and teaches a first reinforcement beam formed from a sheet material (paragraph [0140], beam can be made from a steel sheet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle door of Yun et al. to form the first reinforcement beam from a steel sheet as taught by Ishitobi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material in a sheet format that is strong enough to provide reinforcement of the vehicle door. Tanaka, like Yun et al., teaches a vehicle door, and further teaches a beam (30) is an elongated cylindrical tube (Figs. 1-2) having a first terminal end (P) and a second terminal end (P) fixed to the inner panel (20) by a respective reinforcement member ((40), paragraph [0065] teaches (40) can be used at both ends), wherein each reinforcement member includes an attachment portion that is fixed to the inner panel (Figs. 1-2 show (40) attached to (20) by welding) and a cradle portion (41) unitary with the attachment portion and defining an arcuate seat that is configured for receipt of one of either the first terminal end or the second terminal end of the elongated cylindrical tube (Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle door of Yun et al. modified by Ishitobi et al., to provide the second beam as an elongated cylindrical tube fixed to the inner panel by reinforcement members as taught by Tanaka, with a reasonable expectation of success, since providing a standard bracket connection for the beam may allow for an impact to break the bracket and have the end of the beam come off the inner panel, which would decrease the effect of the impact the beam can receive (Tanaka; paragraph [0004]). Regarding claim 8, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the vehicle door of claim 7, and teaches (references to Tanaka) wherein the cylindrical tube (30) is arc welded to the reinforcement members ((40), paragraph [0036] mentions arc- welding of (30) to (40)). Regarding claim 10, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the vehicle door of claim 7, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam is an upper beam on the door (Fig. 3, upper anti-collision beam (2) is positioned as an upper beam on the door). Regarding claim 11, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the vehicle door of claim 7, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam and the second beam are spaced parallel to one another (Fig. 3, (2) and (3) are parallel to each other). Regarding claim 12, Yun et al. as modified by Ishitobi et al. and Tanaka teaches the vehicle door of claim 11, and teaches (references to Yun et al.) wherein the first reinforcement beam and the second beam are angled with respect to a horizontal plane (Fig. 3, (2) and (3) are angled to a horizontal plane). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Teshima et al. (US 12172502) and Liu (US 2023/0271650) teach a vehicle door with reinforcement beams. 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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday. 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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. /CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599117
AQUACULTURE-FEEDING / OXYGEN-DISSOLUTION ASSEMBLY FOR OCEAN APPLICATIONS AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593758
VERTICAL GROWING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582108
TELESCOPING LURE RETRIEVAL TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568952
Bait Apparatus For Animal Cage Trap And Method Of Baiting Using The Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568957
TURKEY DECOY SYSTEM
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+48.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 165 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