Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/402,365

INTEGRATED SLEW DRIVES FOR ACTUATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND OTHERS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 13, 2021
Examiner
RUSHING, JR, BOBBY
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kinematics LLC
OA Round
8 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
368 granted / 487 resolved
+23.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
512
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 487 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 . 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 1-7, 10-13, 20 and 23-31, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 2015/0082923) in view of Sahara (US 5,097,718) and further in view of Gee (US 8,904,774) Regarding claim 1, Morgan discloses and shows in Fig. 2 an actuation system comprising: a solar tracker operably coupled to a slew drive, wherein the slew drive comprises: a housing comprising a first distal housing section (left end) and a second distal housing section (right end); a worm gear comprising a central threaded section (26), a first distal shaft section (to the left of central threaded section) including a first shoulder (not labeled), and a second distal shaft section (to the right of central threaded section) including a second shoulder (not labeled), wherein the second distal shaft section comprises a bore with internal splines extending longitudinally along the bore, wherein the bore is disposed between the second shoulder and a distal end of the second distal shaft section (see Fig. A below); a first bearing (not labeled) seated on the first distal shaft section and abutting the first shoulder; a second bearing (not labeled) seated on the second distal shaft section and abutting the second shoulder; a worm wheel (32) coupled to said solar tracker, wherein the worm wheel comprises worm-wheel teeth operative to engage the central threaded section of the worm gear. Morgan does not include a threaded plug, the first distal housing section including a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, the first bearing abutting the threaded plug and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section of the first distal housing section, a compressive force is exerted upon the worm gear. Neither does Morgan specify an oil seal. Sahara discloses and shows at Fig. 1 a threaded plug (44), a first distal housing section (right end of the housing) including a threaded section (not labeled, at 51) operative to receive the threaded plug, a first bearing (42) abutting the threaded plug, and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section, a compressive force is exerted upon a worm gear (34) (Col. 2:19-28) to allow the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear. Further, the second distal housing section includes an oil seal (45) to prevent leaking therefrom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Morgan actuation system to have a threaded plug, to have the first distal housing section include a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, to have the first bearing abut the threaded plug and to make it that rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section of the first distal housing section, a compressive force is exerted upon the worm gear and to also include an oil seal at the second housing section, as taught by Sahara, for the purpose of allowing the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear and to prevent leakage of oil/lubricant. Neither Morgan nor Sahara describes a sustained torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning. Gee discloses and shows an actuation system comprising a solar tracker operably coupled to a slew drive, wherein the slew drive is configured to sustain a torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning, the actuation system produce “the amount of torque output needed to rotate the collectors to the stow position when subjected to high winds” (col. 7:67 – col: 8:13). 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 Morgan/Sahara actuation system to produce torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m to rotate the a component coupled to the actuation system to a stow position when subjected to high winds as taught by Gee. PNG media_image1.png 478 568 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Morgan discloses and shows in Fig. 2 an actuation system comprising: a slew drive that is configured to be operably coupled to a component selected from the group consisting of a telecommunication dish, a radar dish, a solar array, and a solar tracker, wherein the slew drive comprises: a housing comprising a first distal housing section (left end) and a second distal housing section (right end); a worm gear comprising a central threaded section (26), a first distal shaft section (to the left of central threaded section) including a first shoulder (not labeled), and a second distal shaft section (to the right of central threaded section) including a second shoulder (not labeled), wherein the second distal shaft section comprises a bore with internal splines extending longitudinally along the bore, wherein the bore is disposed between the second shoulder and a distal end of the second distal shaft section (see Fig. A above); a first bearing (not labeled) seated on the first distal shaft section and abutting the first shoulder; a second bearing (not labeled) seated on the second distal shaft section and abutting the second shoulder; a worm wheel (32) coupled to said component, wherein the worm wheel comprises worm-wheel teeth operative to engage the central threaded section of the worm gear. Morgan does not include a threaded plug, the first distal housing section including a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, the first bearing abutting the threaded plug and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section of the first distal housing section, a compressive force is exerted upon the worm gear. Neither does Morgan specify an oil seal. Sahara discloses and shows at Fig. 1 a threaded plug (44), a first distal housing section (right end of the housing) including a threaded section (not labeled, at 51) operative to receive the threaded plug, a first bearing (42) abutting the threaded plug, and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section, a compressive force is exerted upon a worm gear (34) (Col. 2:19-28) to allow the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear. Further, the second distal housing section includes an oil seal (45) to prevent leaking therefrom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Morgan actuation system to have a threaded plug, to have the first distal housing section include a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, to have the first bearing abut the threaded plug and to make it that rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section of the first distal housing section, a compressive force is exerted upon the worm gear and to also include an oil seal at the second housing section, as taught by Sahara, for the purpose of allowing the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear and to prevent leakage of oil/lubricant. Neither Morgan nor Sahara describes a sustained torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning. Gee discloses and shows an actuation system comprising a solar tracker operably coupled to a slew drive, wherein the slew drive is configured to sustain a torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning, the actuation system produce “the amount of torque output needed to rotate the collectors to the stow position when subjected to high winds” (col. 7:67 – col: 8:13). 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 Morgan/Sahara actuation system to produce torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m to rotate the a component coupled to the actuation system to a stow position when subjected to high winds as taught by Gee. Cl. 3 does not appear to introduce any structural limitations whereas Morgan/Sahara/Gee discloses the claimed structural limitations of claim 2 and is considered to behave (rotate said component at a speed of 0.05 to 0.5 degrees per second) as claimed. Cls. 4-6 – the component selected from the aforementioned group would have a weight ranging from 1 kg to 3,000 kg. Cl. 7 - said component is rotated along a plane that is perpendicular to an axial axis of the worm gear. Cl. 10 - at least one of the first bearing and the second bearing comprises one of a roller bearing or a ball bearing (Morgan, Sahara). Cl. 11 - the roller bearing comprises one of a tapered roller bearing, a cylindrical roller bearing, a spherical roller bearing, and a needle roller bearing (Sahara, col. 2:23). Cl. 12 - the ball bearings from Morgan, Sahara or Gee are not one of the claimed types of ball bearings. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of the listed types of ball bearings since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) as described in MPEP 2144.07. Cl. 13 - the first bearing is seated on the first distal shaft section via one of a clearance fit, a transition fit, and an interference fit (Sahara, col. 2:24). Cl. 15 - at least one of thread lock and sealant applied on the threaded section of the first distal housing section (Sahara, col. 2:58-62). Regarding claim 20, Morgan discloses a method comprising: providing a slew drive that comprises: a housing comprising a first distal housing section (left end) and a second distal housing section (right end); a worm gear comprising a central threaded section (26), a first distal shaft section (to the left of central threaded section) including a first shoulder (not labeled), and a second distal shaft section (to the right of central threaded section) including a second shoulder (not labeled), wherein the second distal shaft section comprises a bore with internal splines extending longitudinally along the bore, wherein the bore is disposed between the second shoulder and a distal end of the second distal shaft section (see Fig. A above); a first bearing (not labeled) seated on the first distal shaft section and abutting the first shoulder; a second bearing (not labeled) seated on the second distal shaft section and abutting the second shoulder; a worm wheel (32) comprising worm-wheel teeth operative to engage the central threaded section of the worm gear, and (b) coupling the worm wheel of the slew drive to said component. Morgan does not include a threaded plug, the first distal housing section including a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, the first bearing abutting the threaded plug and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section of the first distal housing section, a compressive force is exerted upon the worm gear. Neither does Morgan specify an oil seal. Sahara discloses and shows at Fig. 1 a threaded plug (44), a first distal housing section (right end of the housing) including a threaded section (not labeled, at 51) operative to receive the threaded plug, a first bearing (42) abutting the threaded plug, and whereby rotating the threaded plug, in engagement with the threaded section, a compressive force is exerted upon a worm gear (34) (Col. 2:19-28) to allow the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear. Further, the second distal housing section includes an oil seal (45) to prevent leaking therefrom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Morgan actuation system to have a threaded plug, to have the first distal housing section include a threaded section operative to receive the threaded plug, to have the first bearing abut the threaded plug, (c) rotating the threaded plug in engagement with the threaded section to thereby exert a compressive force upon the worm gear and to also include an oil seal at the second housing section, as taught by Sahara, for the purpose of allowing the user to alter a desired preload/compressive force on the worm shaft thus providing better engagement between the teeth on the worm shaft and the worm gear and to prevent leakage of oil/lubricant. Neither Morgan nor Sahara describes a sustained torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning. Gee discloses and shows an actuation system comprising a solar tracker operably coupled to a slew drive, wherein the slew drive is configured to sustain a torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m without failing or overturning, the actuation system produce “the amount of torque output needed to rotate the collectors to the stow position when subjected to high winds” (col. 7:67 – col: 8:13). 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 Morgan/Sahara actuation system to produce torque ranging from 3.5 kN-m to 40 kN-m to rotate the a component coupled to the actuation system to a stow position when subjected to high winds as taught by Gee. Cl. 23 – the second distal shaft section further comprises an interior hollow section adjacent to the bore, wherein the bore comprises a first opening extending to the interior hollow section and a second opening at a distal end of the second distal shaft section (see Fig. A above). Cl. 24 – the internal splines of the bore do not extend into the interior hollow section. Cls. 25-31 – Claims 25-31 claim features (axial load, overturning moment, bearing diameter, survivability torques, and tilting torque) having ranges. While neither Morgan, Sahara nor Gee do not expressly disclose these ranges for the claimed features, these claimed ranges may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the actuation system, suited to the intended use and desired load carrying parameters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Morgan, Sahara and Gee to where the axial load, overturning moment, bearing diameter, survivability torques, and tilting torque may be optimized to the desired operational and load carrying parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable. See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) which states, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Further, MPEP 2144.04 states “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s disclosure, and all other evidence of record, fails to set forth any unexpected result (i.e., criticality) due to any specific range over any other. Accordingly, the claimed orientation lacks any criticality such that a rejection based solely on case law is appropriate. Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Sahara, further in view of Gee, as applied to claim 2, and further still in view of Swartzentruber et al. (US 8,087,424). Morgan, Sahara and Gee disclose and show the invention of claim 2. Neither disclose a hole within the housing to receive oil lubricant. Regarding claim 21 –Swartzentruber teaches a housing (12) for a worm gear speed reducer, the housing having a hole (78) configured to receive oil lubricant, wherein the hole faces a same direction (parallel to axis 70) as a bore of the worm wheel (22), the lubricant lubricates the worm wheel and worm gear while also improving heat dissipation. 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 combined Morgan/Sahara/Gee system to where the housing has a hole configured to receive oil lubricant to lubricate the worm wheel and gear while also improving heat dissipation as taught by Swartzentruber. Cl. 8 – the hole is located directly below the worm wheel (Swartzentruber). Cl. 9 – the housing (Swartzentruber) has a worm housing shaft, and wherein the hole (78) is located on a side wall of the worm housing shaft (see Fig. 2). Cl. 22 – the hole is configured to receive the oil lubricant to lubricate the worm wheel (22) and roller bearings (76). Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Sahara, and further in view of Gee, as applied to claim 2, and further still in view of Vollner et al. (US 2013/0239722). Morgan, Sahara and Gee disclose and show the invention of claim 2. Regarding claim 16, neither include a ball bearing about the worm wheel as claimed. Vollner teaches an actuation system comprising a first wheel ball bearing (Figs. 4 and 5) disposed at a first axial end of the worm wheel, wherein the worm wheel (4) comprises a first race (26) of the first wheel ball bearing and the housing (6) comprises a second race (25) of the first wheel ball bearing, the first wheel ball bearing providing rotational support for the worm wheel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Morgan/Sahara/Gee to have a first wheel ball bearing disposed at a first axial end of the worm wheel and including a first race of the first wheel ball bearing and the housing comprises a second race of the first wheel ball bearing, for the purpose of providing rotational support for the worm wheel. Cl. 17 – Vollner includes a second wheel ball bearing (Figs. 4 and 6), wherein the worm wheel comprises a first race of the second wheel ball bearing and the housing comprises a second race of the second wheel ball bearing disposed at a second axial end of the worm wheel. Cl. 18 - the first wheel ball bearing is disposed on a first side (Fig. 4, inset V) of the worm wheel and the second wheel ball bearing is disposed on a second side (Fig. 4, inset VI) of the worm wheel. Cl. 19 – Vollner further includes a grease shield (30). Response to Arguments Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on (571) 270-7778. 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. /BOBBY RUSHING, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 13, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
May 03, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 04, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 06, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 10, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 24, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 20, 2024
Interview Requested
Oct 04, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 10, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 17, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 06, 2025
Response Filed
May 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595840
Transmission for a Coaxial Two-Machine Electric Drive of a Motor Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588966
Robotic Surgical System With Illumination Device To Indicate Mounting Assembly Installation Condition
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590621
BELT TERMINATION AND TENSIONING IN A PULLEY ARRANGEMENT FOR A ROBOTIC ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584543
CABLE ACTUATOR WITH IMPROVED COMPACTNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584551
GEAR STRUCTURE
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

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+14.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 487 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