Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/544,434

VEHICLE SKELETON STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 19, 2023
Examiner
ESQUIVEL, DENISE LYNNE
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 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
60 granted / 70 resolved
+33.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
93
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 70 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 . This communication is in response to application No. 18/544,434, filed on 12/19/2023. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5 have been rejected as follows. 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. Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai et al (US Patent No. 12,503,165) in view of Iwata et al (JP 2015171825 A). Regarding claim 1, Rai et al discloses a vehicle skeleton structure (Fig. 1-2 & 4), comprising a die-cast skeleton body (115, Fig. 4; column 7, lines 31-32) formed integrally and including a floor part (165, 170, Fig. 1-2 & 4) configuring a vehicle cabin floor portion and a side member (150A/150B, Fig. 4) disposed at both sides (column 7, lines 32-34), in a vehicle width direction, of the floor part and extending in a vehicle front-rear direction. However, Rai et al does not expressly disclose a severance origin point being formed at the skeleton body, and the severance origin point configuring a starting point when at least a part of the side member is severed. Iwata et al teaches that it is well known to have a severance origin point (notches 11 & 12, Fig. 1-4) being formed at the skeleton body rear side members (3, Fig. 1-4) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle body frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skeleton body of Rai et al to include the type of severance origin point as taught by Iwata et al. Doing so would control the bending direction of the side member in order to protect the floor portion in the event of a collision. Regarding claim 2, Rai et al in view of Iwata et al further discloses wherein the side member (150A/150B, Fig. 4) is provided with an energy absorbing part (405A/405B, Fig. 4) configured to absorb energy by collapsing at a time of a vehicle collision (column 7, lines 44-55), and the severance origin point is formed between the energy absorbing part and the floor part (Iwata et al – notches 11 & 12 are between energy absorbing bumper stay 5 and floor panel 1). Regarding claim 5, Rai et al in view of Iwata et al further discloses wherein the floor part (165, 170, Fig. 1-2 & 4) configures a floor portion of a rear part of the vehicle cabin (Fig. 1-2), and the side member comprises a rear side member (150A/150B, Fig. 4; column 7, lines 31-36) extending from the floor part (165, 179, Fig. 4; column 7, lines 40-43) toward a rear side (bumper, column 7, lines 34-35) of the vehicle (100, Fig. 1-2). Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishii et al (US 2019/0176898) in view of Rai et al (US Patent No. 12,503,165). Regarding claim 1, Nishii et al discloses a vehicle skeleton structure (200, Fig. 1), comprising a die-cast side member (20, Fig. 2; [0025], lines 5-6) disposed at both sides, in a vehicle width direction, and extending in a vehicle front-rear direction; and a severance origin point (as broadly claimed interpreted as “strength lowering portion 25”, Fig. 2; [0030]), the severance origin point being formed at the skeleton body (20, Fig. 2), and the severance origin point configuring a starting point ([0035]) when at least a part of the side member is severed (20, Fig. 6). However, Nishii et al does not expressly disclose a die-cast skeleton body formed integrally and including a floor part configuring a vehicle cabin floor portion. Rai et al teaches that it is known to manufacture a die-cast skeleton body (110, Fig. 1-3) formed integrally and including a floor part (floor defined by side sills, Fig. 1) configuring a vehicle cabin (within 100, 105, Fig. 1) floor portion with the side member (120A/120B, Fig. 1-3) disposed at both sides (column 5, lines 51-63) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle body frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the skeleton body by incorporating the die-cast manufacturing as taught by Rai et al. Doing so would provide reduced vehicle weight, faster production and improved structural rigidity. Regarding claim 2, Nishii et al in view of Rai et al further discloses wherein the side member (20, Fig. 2 & 6) is provided with an energy absorbing part (50, Fig. 2 & 6, [0028], lines 9-13) configured to absorb energy by collapsing at a time of a vehicle collision ([0028]), and the severance origin point (25, Fig. 2) is formed between the energy absorbing part (50, Fig. 2 & 6) and the floor part (toward rear of 150, Fig. 1-2). Regarding claim 3, Nishii et al in view of Rai et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, and Nishii et al further discloses wherein a flange part (upper and lower flanges 23, 24, Fig. 2 & 4) extending from the side member (20, Fig. 2) toward an outer side in an axial direction is provided in a vicinity (near connecting portion 26, Fig. 2) of the severance origin point (25, Fig. 2; [0031]). Regarding claim 4, Nishii et al in view of Rai et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 3 above, and Nishii et al further discloses wherein an attachment hole (surrounding 45, Fig. 4) is formed at the flange part (23, 24, Fig. 4), the attachment hole (45, Fig. 4) being configured to receive a bolt (45, Fig. 4; [0032], lines 10-11) to be inserted therethrough. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kasuga (US 2004/0119321) discloses a cast hollow front or rear side frame member for crash energy absorption. Tatsuwaki et al (US Patent No. 9,751,565) discloses side members with severance point (35) and energy absorbing part (22) in Figure 15. Sano et al (US 2001/0033094) discloses a vehicle body structure that has cutouts (21b, Fig. 8) for promoting inward bending of the rear side member (13R) due to collision impact and braces (22, 25, Fig. 10) for absorbing energy. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 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. /D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612 /AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583406
VEHICLE STRUCTURAL MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576926
PNEUMATIC BLADDER AERODYNAMIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576699
CABLE DEPLOYABLE ACROSS VEHICLE DOOR OPENING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565272
REAR PART STRUCTURE OF VEHICLE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559189
Motorcycle Canopy
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
95%
With Interview (+9.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 70 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