Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/545,384

FRONT FACE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 19, 2023
Examiner
ZHUO, WENWEI
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Opmobility SE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
193 granted / 244 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
286
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 244 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 . 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. Claims 1, 3-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 8337064 B2) in view of Tanabe et al. (US 20200094879 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yonezawa discloses a front face (Yonezawa, Fig. 1) for a motor vehicle (Yonezawa, 18 in Fig. 1) characterized in that it comprises:- an upper portion (Yonezawa, 10 in Fig. 1) having a first external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 22) visible from an outside of the vehicle (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, exposed to forward exterior) and comprising an upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 22) and a trim module (Yonezawa, 20 in Fig. 1), wherein the trim module comprises an electromagnetic waves diffusion member (Yonezawa, Col. 5 lines 46-49, lamp) wherein the trim module is adapted to attach to a support structure (Yonezawa, 26 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle,- a lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, portion below 10, includes 16 and 48), having a second external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, forward outer surface of 48) visible from the outside of the vehicle and comprising a lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 16), an upper end of the lower panel being adjacent to a lower end of the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1 and 11A), wherein the lower panel is configured to move in a direction of a rear of the vehicle, independently of the upper panel, upon an impact at the second external surface of the lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 10-11B). Yonezawa fails to disclose a first plastic material and a second plastic material; and an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves. Tanabe teaches a first plastic material and a second plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic; Yonezawa already teaches synthetic resin in Col. 10 last line); and an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves (Tanabe, Fig. 1-2 and paragraph 43, trim module of 16 has lamps along with other electromagnetic wave emitting devices, and the external surface is made from transparent material, therefore some electromagnetic waves will be able to go through). Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and use plastics and have a trim module with transparent surface. Doing so provides a surface allowing multiple devices to be installed behind of and maximizes vehicle capabilities, also reduces the weight of the vehicle by using plastic as compare to metal. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the upper end of the lower panel and the lower end of the upper panel form deformable or breakable fastening parts (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A-11B, breakable shown in Fig. 11B), wherein the deformable or breakable complementary fastening parts are adapted to fasten the lower panel to the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A), and wherein the deformable or breakable complementary fastening parts are configured to deform or break (Yonezawa, Fig. 11B) during an impact (Yonezawa, Fig. 10) at the second external surface of the lower portion. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the upper end of the lower panel forms an undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 16A and 16D), and wherein the lower end of the upper panel being arranged in the undercut (Yonezawa, 14B in Fig. 11A in the undercut) at a distance (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, distance of the undercut) and facing the upper end of the lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 4, wherein the upper end of the lower panel forms a groove (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 16A, 16C, and 16D) and the lower end of the upper panel forms a tab (Yonezawa, 14B in Fig. 11A) arranged in the groove. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the lower end of the upper panel forms an undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 14C and 14B), and wherein the upper end of the lower panel being arranged in the undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, 16A in the undercut) at a distance (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, distance of the undercut) and facing the lower end of the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 6, wherein the lower end of the upper panel forms a groove (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 14C, 14B, and also a part spaced above to 14B) and the upper end of the lower panel forms a tab (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, 16A) arranged in the groove. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 5, wherein the groove and the tab extend in a same substantially horizontal plane (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, they are substantially horizontal, which is in the front-rear direction of the vehicle) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the lower portion forms a protuberance relative to the upper portion at an external surface of the front face (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, lower portion is protruding forward relative to the upper portion). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, further comprising two optical units (Tanabe, 15 in Fig. 1) integrated into the trim module, the optical units being arranged respectively at two opposite lateral ends of the trim module (Tanabe, Fig. 1, two lights 15 on each end of the trim module). Examiner notes that optical units are known in the vehicle area to have structural connotations; they are interpreted to be equivalent of lighting units. Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and use plastics and have two optical units. Doing so provides safety to vehicle operators and other traffic users during low light conditions. Regarding claim 11, Yonezawa discloses a motor vehicle (Yonezawa, 18 in Fig. 1) characterized in that it comprises a front face (Yonezawa, Fig. 1), wherein the front face further comprises: - an upper portion (Yonezawa, 10 in Fig. 1) having a first external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 22) visible from an outside of the vehicle (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, exposed to forward exterior) and comprising an upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 22) and a trim module (Yonezawa, 20 in Fig. 1), wherein the trim module comprises an electromagnetic waves diffusion member (Yonezawa, Col. 5 lines 46-49, lamp) wherein the trim module is adapted to attach to a support structure (Yonezawa, 26 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle,- a lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, portion below 10, includes 16 and 48), having a second external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, forward outer surface of 48) visible from the outside of the vehicle and comprising a lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 16), an upper end of the lower panel being adjacent to a lower end of the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1 and 11A), wherein the lower panel is configured to move in a direction of a rear of the vehicle, independently of the upper panel, upon an impact at the second external surface of the lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 10-11B). Yonezawa fails to disclose a first plastic material and a second plastic material; and an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves. Tanabe teaches a first plastic material and a second plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic; Yonezawa already teaches synthetic resin in Col. 10 last line); and an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves (Tanabe, Fig. 1-2 and paragraph 43, trim module of 16 has lamps along with other electromagnetic wave emitting devices, and the external surface is made from transparent material, therefore some electromagnetic waves will be able to go through). Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and use plastics and have a trim module with transparent surface. Doing so provides a surface allowing multiple devices to be installed behind of and maximizes vehicle capabilities, also reduces the weight of the vehicle by using plastic as compare to metal. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 7, wherein the groove and the tab extend in a same substantially horizontal plane (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, they are substantially horizontal, which is in the front-rear direction of the vehicle) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle. Claims 2 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mildner (US 8246105 B2). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the lower panel is configured to move over a stroke along a longitudinal axis (X) of the vehicle, towards the rear of the vehicle, independently of the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 10-11B, lower panel pushed rearward by frontal impact). The combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe fails to teach 10 mm to 100 mm Mildner teaches 10 mm to 100 mm (Mildner, Col. 9 lines 20-27, 40-45 mm or 75 mm) Mildner is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure that displaces in the event of an impact to protect other vehicle components as Yonezawa in view of Tanabe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa in view of Tanabe to incorporate the teachings of Mildner with a reasonable expectation of success and design the front face to have a stroke of 10 mm to 100 mm. Doing so provides desired protection to other vehicle component during an impact. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 2, wherein the upper end of the lower panel forms an undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 16A and 16D), and wherein the lower end of the upper panel being arranged in the undercut (Yonezawa, 14B in Fig. 11A in the undercut) at a distance (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, distance of the undercut) and facing the upper end of the lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 4, wherein the upper end of the lower panel forms a groove (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 16A, 16C, and 16D) and the lower end of the upper panel forms a tab (Yonezawa, 14B in Fig. 11A) arranged in the groove. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 13, wherein the groove and the tab extend in a same substantially horizontal plane (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, they are substantially horizontal, which is in the front-rear direction of the vehicle) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 2, wherein the lower end of the upper panel forms an undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 14C and 14B), and wherein the upper end of the lower panel being arranged in the undercut (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, 16A in the undercut) at a distance (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, distance of the undercut) and facing the lower end of the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 15, wherein the lower end of the upper panel forms a groove (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, formed by 14C, 14B, and also a part spaced above to 14B) and the upper end of the lower panel forms a tab (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, 16A) arranged in the groove. Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 16, wherein the groove and the tab extend in a same substantially horizontal plane (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A, they are substantially horizontal, which is in the front-rear direction of the vehicle) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle. Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe teaches the front face according to claim 2, wherein the upper end of the lower panel and the lower end of the upper panel form deformable or breakable complementary fastening parts (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A-11B, breakable shown in Fig. 11B), wherein the deformable or breakable complementary fastening parts are adapted to fasten the lower panel to the upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A), and wherein the deformable or breakable complementary fastening parts are configured to deform or break (Yonezawa, Fig. 11B) during an impact (Yonezawa, Fig. 10) at the second external surface of the lower portion. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose protecting an upper portion of vehicle front structure by deforming a lower portion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST. 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 at (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 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. /WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600206
GLARE BLOCKING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600208
OVERMOLDING ASSEMBLY REINFORCEMENT BRACKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599518
AMBULANCE COT AND LOADING AND UNLOADING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594891
Under-Seat Storage System for a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583543
Motorcycle Having an Adjustable Air-Guiding Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
79%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 244 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