Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 18/902,959

VEHICLE IMPACT ABSORBING STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Oct 01, 2024
Priority
Oct 06, 2023 — JP 2023-174604
Examiner
LE, HUAN G
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
MAZDA MOTOR Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
729 granted / 824 resolved
+28.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 824 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/902,959 filed on 10/1/24. Claims 1-14 are pending. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/1/24 & 6/10/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 Line 6: “the bottom” should be amended as -- a bottom --. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,499,111 to Watanabe et al. (Applicant cited reference). Claim 1 Watanabe discloses in Figs. 1-16, A vehicle impact absorbing structure, comprising: a side frame (e.g. 1) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction in a vehicle front portion; a bumper beam (e.g. 2) that extends in a vehicle width direction in front of the side frame, the bumper beam having a beam end portion located on an outer side of the side frame in the vehicle width direction; and an impact absorbing member (e.g. 5 & 6) that couples a front end of the side frame and the bumper beam in the vehicle front-rear direction (Fig 9), the impact absorbing member being compressively deformable by an impact load that is input to the bumper beam from the front of the vehicle (Column 7, lines 55-61 & Column 9 lines 15-21), wherein: the impact absorbing member has: a first portion (e.g. 5) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle in the vehicle front-rear direction, the first portion being joined to the bumper beam; and a second portion (e.g. 6) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle and inclined outwardly in the vehicle width direction, the second portion being joined to the beam end portion of the bumper beam, and the impact absorbing member has a common member (e.g. 5u) that is provided across the first portion and the second portion, the common member forming a part of each of the first portion and the second portion. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 6-8, 13 & 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 13 & 15 of copending Application No. 18/903,134 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application fully encompass those of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5 & 9-12 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST. 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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 01, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734872
Support Device for Vehicular Battery Pack and Electric Truck
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736123
DRIVE SYSTEM AND DRIVE TRANSMISSION
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734873
PROTECTION DEVICE FOR AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM OF A VEHICLE
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12731847
BATTERY PACK
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12723649
CONTROL SYSTEM, WORK VEHICLE, CONTROL METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.5%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 824 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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