Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/561,988

TRUNK FOR INSTALLATION IN UNDERCUT REGION OF VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
MCFALL, NICHOLAS A
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Atieva, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
449 granted / 524 resolved
+33.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
541
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§102
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 524 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Singer (US Publication Number 20180050644). Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses a vehicle trunk (Figures 1-3, Figures 6-8, and Figures 12, 13a and 24-26) comprising: a first trunk part forming at least a first wall of the vehicle trunk, the first trunk part including a thermoplastic elastomer material, wherein the first trunk part is at least partially collapsible to facilitate installation of the vehicle trunk into an undercut region of a vehicle (Figure 24 element 250, Paragraph 109); and a second trunk part forming at least a second wall of the vehicle trunk (Figures 1-3 element 10, Figures 6-8 element 12, Figures 12, 13a and 24-26 element 14), wherein the first and second trunk parts define an interior of the vehicle trunk, and wherein the second trunk part includes a fiber-reinforced polymer material (Figures 1-3 element 10, Figures 6-8 element 12, Figures 12, 13a and 24-26 element 14, Paragraph 107). Regarding claim 2, see figure 4 and figure 10. Regarding claim 3, see figure 24 element 256. Regarding claim 4, see figure 24 element 256. The examiner notes that the notes that claim merely requires that the first wall be “configured to” abut to the claimed structure, but fails to claim any structure that would render the wall configured as claimed. As such any wall can be considered to be “configured to” abut the claimed structure. Regarding claim 6, see figure 24 elements 252 and 254. Regarding claim 8, see figures 24-26. The examiner notes that the claim limitation requiring a specific method of creating the trunk is a product by process limitation and as the trunk of Singer is substantially identical to the claimed trunk, the limitation is met by Singer. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 16, see figures 1-3 element 10, figures 6-8 element 12, figures 12, 13a and 24-26 element 14. Regarding claim 17, see figures 1-3 element 10, figures 6-8 element 12, figures 12, 13a and 24-26 element 14. The examiner notes that the notes that claim merely requires that the trunk be “configured to” be a front trunk, but fails to claim any structure that would render the trunk configured as claimed. As such any trunk can be considered to be “configured to” be a front trunk. Regarding claim 18, see figures 1-3 element 10, figures 6-8 element 12, figures 12, 13a and 24-26 element 14. The examiner notes that the notes that claim merely requires that the trunk be “configured to” be positioned ahead of a front motor of the vehicle, but fails to claim any structure that would render the trunk configured as claimed. As such any trunk can be considered to be “configured to” be positioned ahead of a front motor of the vehicle 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. 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(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazzarella (US Publication Number 20210237652). Regarding claim 19, Singer discloses the above trunk, but fails to disclose the trunk having a carpet as claimed. However, Mazzarella discloses a similar trunk (Figure 2 element 2) that comprises a carpet as claimed (Paragraph 34). Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trunk of Singer with the carpet of Mazzarella for the predictable result of adding an aesthetically pleasing decorative layer to the trunk (Mazzarella, Paragraph 34). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 7, 9-15 and 20-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4. 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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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. /Nicholas McFall/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599238
NECK SUPPORTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600503
Modular, configurable airframe system for heavy lift rotary wing UAV
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595055
Payload Delivery Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589708
FRONT END MODULE FRAME OF VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589870
THE METHOD OF OBTAINING LIFT AND THRUST FOR HORIZONTAL FLIGHT OF VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING FLYING MACHINE WHILE MAINTAINING THE HORIZONTAL STABILITY OF THE MACHINE'S FLIGHT AND THE MACHINE TO IMPLEMENT THIS METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
97%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 524 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