Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/024,935

FRONT RAIL WITH CRASH TUNING FEATURES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Examiner
BECK, KAREN
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shape Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
648 granted / 784 resolved
+30.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 784 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. Claim(s) 1 – 5, 9 – 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. U.S. 2014/0084634 (“Suzuki”). Suzuki discloses a front rail (abstract) for a vehicle frame (paragraph [0016]), the front rail comprising: a tubular beam (11, [0092]) comprising a high-strength metal sheet (steel, [0100]) formed along a length (fig. 8) to define a cross-sectional shape (fig. 9) that generally extends the length of the tubular beam; wherein the tubular beam has a front end (fig. 8) configured to couple with a bumper assembly (21) and a rear end [0120] opposite the front end and configured to couple to a mid-frame component [0120]; and wherein the tubular beam comprises at least one crash tuning feature (weakened portions to deform and absorb impact) on the metal sheet configured to undergo deformation during axial loading in a frontal vehicle impact (fig. 13(B)) between the front and rear ends. In reference to claims 2 – 5 and 9 – 14, Suzuki discloses [[claim 2]] the cross-sectional shape defining an enclosed shape (fig. 9) comprising a first side wall portion (left), a second side wall portion (right), a top wall portion (top), and a bottom wall portion (bottom); [[claim 3]] wherein the cross-sectional shape includes a central wall (fig. 5(A))extending from a first vertical location (a, b) at the first side wall portion to a second vertical location (fig. 5(A)) at the second side wall portion; [[claim 4]] wherein the tubular beam is formed by roll-forming the metal sheet (product by process [0092]); [[claim 5]] wherein the at least one crash tuning feature on the metal sheet comprises an aperture (cutout, opening [0127]) extending through the metal sheet; [[claim 9]] wherein the at least one crash tuning feature on the metal sheet comprises at least one curved region (bend [0127]) along the length of the beam; [[claim 10]] wherein the at least one curved region comprises a curve in at least one of an outboard or an inboard direction (fig. 10); [[claim 11]] wherein the at least one crash tuning feature on the metal sheet comprises at least one reinforcement bracket [0127] extending along the length of the tubular beam; [[claim 12]] wherein the at least one reinforcement bracket is positioned in in at least one of an inner corner of the cross-sectional shape or an outer corner of the cross- sectional shape (fig. 11); [[claim 13]] wherein the at least one crash tuning feature on the metal sheet comprises at least one weld spot on an outer surface of the metal sheet (fig. 3, [0151]); and [[claim 14]] wherein the tubular beam includes a plurality of crash tuning features (weakened areas for deformation absorbing impact) along the length of the beam. In reference to claims 15 and 16, Suzuki discloses a structural beam [0001] for a vehicle (automobile), the structural beam comprising: an elongated body (fig. 7) formed from a metal sheet material [0021] and configured to extend from a first end (front) at a bumper assembly (21) to a second end (rear) at a mid-frame assembly (abstract); wherein the elongated body includes a plurality of crash tuning areas (locally weakened areas) formed on the metal sheet material which define areas of reduced strength of the elongated body. In reference to claim 16, Suzuki further discloses wherein the crash tuning areas are configured to undergo deformation during axial loading in a frontal vehicle impact (load, abstract) between the first end and the second end of the elongated body. In reference to claims 17, 19 and 20, Suzuki discloses a front rail (11) configured to be supported by a vehicle frame (chassis), the front rail comprising: a tubular body (11) formed by a roll-formed high-strength metal ([0092], steel) and defining a cross-sectional shape (abstract) along a length of the tubular body (fig. 8); and at least one crash tuning feature (weakened areas) located on the tubular body; wherein the tubular body is configured to undergo axial loading during a frontal vehicle impact (abstract), and wherein, under axial loading, the tubular body is configured to deform at the at least one crash tuning features ([0026], [0036]). In reference to claims 19 and 20, Suzuki further discloses the at least one crash tuning feature includes a plurality of designated locations (locally weakened portions) along the tubular body where the high-strength metal has been weakened, and wherein the high-strength metal has been weakened at the designated locations by at least one of a thinning of the metal, heating of the metal (fig. 7, [0108]), or welding of the metal at said locations (fig. 8, [0113]); and [[claim 20]] wherein the at least one crash tuning feature includes a curve (bend, curve, fig. 10) in the tubular body. 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. Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Schneider et al. U.S. 2017/0274851 (“Schneider”). Suzuki is silent to disclose the aperture including a flange surrounding the aperture. Schneider teaches an aperture (along 31) including a flange (fig. 1) along an inner surface of a metal sheet (fig. 1, 3). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Suzuki such that it comprised the aperture and flanges in view of the teachings of Schneider obvious so as to provide a method old and well known in the art with predictable results to weaken a crash box [0057]. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Heatherington et al. U.S. 7,617,916 (“Heatherington”). Schneider does not disclose a plurality of apertures extending through the metal sheet and aligned in a vertical line proximate the front end of the tubular beam. Heatherington teaches a plurality of apertures (21, 24) extending through a metal sheet and aligned in a vertical line (fig. 8 – 10). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Schneider such that it comprised the vertically aligned apertures in view of the teachings of Heatherington as a method old and well known in the art with predictable results to weaken and initiate crush in the structure (column 9, line 27). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Grueneklee et al. U.S. 2005/0151394 (“Grueneklee”). Suzuki discloses the metal sheet comprises a first material thickness generally along the length of the tubular beam but does not disclose wherein in at least one location along the length of the tubular beam, the at least one crash tuning feature on the metal sheet comprises a second material thickness of the metal sheet. Grueneklee teaches in at least one location along a length of a tubular beam ([0008] – [0012]), at least one crash tuning feature on a metal sheet comprises a second material thickness of the metal sheet [0018]. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Suzuki such that it comprised the thickness changes of Grueneklee obvious so as to increase or decrease the strength of the section along the longitudinal member [0018]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN BECK whose telephone number is (571)272-6212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30AM - 4:00PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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. KAREN BECK Primary Examiner Art Unit 3614 /KAREN BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600313
VEHICLE SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594824
CHASSIS ASSEMBLIES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584289
CONSTRUCTION MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583134
NECK DEVICE FOR ABSORBING SHOCK AND REDUCING VIBRATION OF LEGGED MOBILE ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577085
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LEVELING AND OSCILLATION CONTROL OF A LIFT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 784 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