Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/257,880

POWERTRAIN FOR A WORKING MACHINE, METHOD FOR OPERATING THE POWERTRAIN AND WORKING MACHINE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
TRIGGS, JAMES J
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
ZF Friedrichshafen AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1220 granted / 1389 resolved
+35.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1418
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1389 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 ACTION Applicant's amendment filed on 11/6/2025 necessitated the instant rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-15 presented in this Office action. The arguments respectfully submitted and the claim amendment(s) do not overcome the prior art of record. 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 extension fee 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. This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below. If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier. A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 1. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 2021/0108392) in view of Hinterberger et al. (US 2021/0151727). [CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Hahn discloses a drivetrain for a working machine, comprising: at least one electric motor (Hahn, paragraphs [0044-0048]): and an electric energy storage device (Hahn, paragraphs [0044-0048]), wherein the at least one electric motor is configured to provide mechanical power (Hahn, paragraphs [0044- 0048]), and wherein the energy storage device is configured to supply the at least one electric motor with electrical power (Hahn, paragraph [0027]), and wherein the energy storage device comprises at least two individual storage units (Hahn, paragraph [0011]). -However, it fails to disclose the at least two storage units electrically connected in series. -Nevertheless, Hinterberger discloses in paragraph [0100] a series circuit for the battery cells 28. - Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Hahn to have series connections as taught by Hinterberger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase higher overall voltage during high demand. -Regarding the individual storage units being configured for individually supplying an electric passenger car drivetrain with electrical power (Hahn, see paragraph [0056] in its entirety and the response to arguments at the end of this office action). [CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1, wherein the energy storage device further comprises at least two individual storage units electrically connected in parallel (See Hinterberger paragraph [0022]). [CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1 wherein the drivetrain is configured to charge each of the at least two individual storage units each separately with electrical energy by means of an external charger (Hahn paragraph [0048] discloses external charge interface). [CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 4, wherein the drivetrain is configured to use at least one of the at least two individual storage units to supply the at least one electric motor with electrical power, and simultaneously charge at least one further one of the at least two individual storage units with electrical energy by means of the external charger ((Hahn paragraph [0048] discloses external charge interface) and can allow a preselected other battery to operate for example the work implement or accessories if desired). [CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1, wherein the drivetrain comprises at least two electric motors, of which at least one electric motor is assigned to a travel drive of the working machine and at least one further electric motor is assigned to a work drive of the working machine (Hahn paragraphs [0008 and 0009] disclose motors powering the vehicle to drive and operate implements). [CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one electric motors are arranged in a common housing (Each desired motor can be housed in common area of the body or chassis of Hahn). [CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Hahn discloses a method of operating a drivetrain for a working machine, wherein the drivetrain comprises at least one electric motor (Hahn, paragraph [0027]) and an electric energy storage device (Hahn, paragraph [0027]), the method comprising: arranging at least two individual storage units in the working machine to form part of the energy storage device, each of the individual storage units being configured for individually supplying electrical power to an electric passenger car drivetrain (Hahn, see paragraph [0056] in its entirety and the response to arguments at the end of this office action); wherein providing mechanical power is provided by the at least one electric motor (Hahn, paragraph [0027]), and wherein supplying the at least one electric motor is supplied with electrical power from the energy storage device (Hahn, paragraph [0027]) wherein the electrical power is provided by the at least two individual storage units (Hahn, paragraphs [0044-0048]) and wherein the at least two individual storage units are. -However, it fails to disclose the units connected electrically in series, which together constitute form at least part of the energy storage device. -Nevertheless, Hinterberger discloses in paragraph [0100] a series circuit for the battery cells 28. - Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Hahn to have series connections as taught by Hinterberger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase higher overall voltage during high demand. [CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the method according to claim 8, characterized in that further comprising charging each of the at least two individual storage units are each charged separately with electrical energy by means of an external charger (Hahn paragraph [0048] discloses external charge interface). [CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the method according to claim 8, further comprising supplying the at least one electric motor with electrical power from at least one of the at least two individual storage units, and simultaneously charging at least one further one of the at least two individual storage units is charged with electrical energy by means of the external charger (External chargers are conventional in the art of electric vehicles and the order of charging can be predetermined and prioritized). [CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose a working machine comprising the drivetrain according to claim 1 (Hahn, FIG 1). [CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the method according to claim 9, further comprising supplying the at least one electric motor with electrical power from at least one of the at least two individual storage units (Hahn, paragraph [0027]), and simultaneously charging at least one further one of the at least two individual storage units with electrical energy by the external charger (External chargers are conventional in the art of electric vehicles and the order of charging can be predetermined and allow a preselected other battery to operate for example the work implement or accessories). [CLAIM 13] Regarding claim Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 4, wherein each external charger is configured to charge electric passenger cars (External chargers are conventional in the art of electric vehicles and the order of charging can be predetermined and allow a preselected other battery to operate for example the work implement or accessories). [CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1, wherein the drivetrain is arranged in a wheel loader, dumper, excavator, telescopic loader, public utility vehicle, garbage collection vehicle, mining vehicle, skid-steer loader, aircraft tractor or tractor (Hahn, FIG 1 illustrates an exemplary public utility vehicle). PNG media_image1.png 740 672 media_image1.png Greyscale [CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Hahn/Hinterberger disclose the drivetrain according to claim 1, wherein each of the individual storage units is configured to be operated in a load range of 5% to 10% of a maximum output (Any desired output can be selected based on vehicle application). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments and arguments are moot in view of the additional citations in Hahn et al. (US 2021/0108392) regarding powering separate vehicle sub-systems. Applicants asserts that one of skill in the art would not combine your references to arrive at least two individual storage units electrically connected in series because it is unclear why a person of ordinary skill would use passenger car batteries in a work machine. However, examiner isn’t incorporating the batteries of Hinterberger into the teachings of Hahn, Hinterberger is merely being used for the teaching that it is known for batteries for powering a vehicle to be electrically connected in series. Further, paragraph 74 of Hinterberger is not explicitly directed to passenger cars as alleged by the applicant. Paragraph 74 states that the invention is “preferably designed as a passenger car”. However, the use of “preferably” means that Hinterberger is not limited to passenger cars. Paragraph 74 also includes that the invention can be a truck, passenger bus, or motorcycle. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM 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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (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 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. /JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600220
BATTERY CASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597645
Cylindrical Energy Storage Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583522
Battery Protection Structure Resistant Against Frontal Collision of Monocoque Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583300
AXLE ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580265
MOUNTING APERTURE SEALS FOR A VEHICLE BATTERY PACK
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.2%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1389 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