Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/296,836

Actuator

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
WEBER, GREGORY ROBERT
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Dare Auto Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
268 granted / 353 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 353 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hemperly et al. (US 3,159,758). Regarding Claim 1, Hemperly discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1), comprising: A shaft (20) including a first end and a second end and including a disengagement (31) portion near the first end and an engagement portion (30) near the second end (see Fig. 1). A motor (11) coupled to the first end of the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see Fig. 1). A housing (15,33) coupled to the shaft (see Fig. 1) and configured to move toward the disengagement portion during rotation of the shaft in a first direction (see Fig. 1). Wherein the housing has a coupled position (see Fig. 1), in which the housing is engaged with the engagement portion of the shaft (when portion 33 is located within 30), and an uncoupled position (when portion 33 is located within 31), in which the housing is disengaged from the engagement portion of the shaft and is located adjacent to the disengagement portion of the shaft (see Fig. 1). Wherein movement of the housing toward the motor is limited in the uncoupled position (see Fig. 1, showing spring 32 the limits movement of the housing to the right towards the back side of the motor near extension 21) such that, during rotation of the shaft in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, the housing is configured to engage with the engagement portion of the shaft (see Fig. 1, showing the spring biases the housing in a direction that will result in engagement with teeth 30 of the shaft). Regarding Claim 2, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 1, wherein binding of the housing against the motor is limited when in the uncoupled position during rotation of the shaft in the first direction (see Fig. 1, showing spring 32 limits binding). Regarding Claim 3, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 1, wherein the housing remains generally stationary when in the uncoupled position during rotation of the shaft in the first direction (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 4, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 1, wherein the housing is configured to resist a force imparted to the housing by the shaft during rotation of the shaft in the first direction when the housing is in the uncoupled position (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 5, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 1, wherein the housing includes: A body (33). A biasing portion (32) located at an end of the body and configured for contact with the motor (see Fig. 1). Wherein the biasing portion is configured to resist movement of the housing toward the motor when the housing is in the uncoupled position and the biasing portion is in contact with the motor (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 7, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 5, wherein the biasing portion is a spring (see Fig. 1, showing a coil spring). Regarding Claim 8, Hemperly discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1), comprising: A shaft (20) including a first end and a second end and including a disengagement portion (31) near the first end and an engagement portion (30) near the second end (see Fig. 1). A motor (11) coupled to the first end of the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see Fig. 1). A housing (15, 33) coupled to the shaft and configured to move toward the disengagement portion during rotation of the shaft in a first direction (see Fig. 1), the housing having a coupled position (when portion 33 is located within 30), in which the housing is engaged with the engagement portion of the shaft (see Fig. 1), and an uncoupled position (when portion 33 is within 30), in which the housing is disengaged from the engagement portion of the shaft and is located adjacent to the disengagement portion of the shaft (see Fig. 1). A biasing portion (32) slidably engaged with the shaft and positioned between the housing and the motor (see Fig. 1, with the biasing portion being between portion 333 of the housing and the right side of the motor by extension 21). Wherein the biasing portion is configured to limit movement of the housing toward the motor with the housing in the uncoupled position during rotation of the shaft in the first direction (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 9, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 8, wherein the biasing portion is a coil spring (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 12, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 8, wherein the engagement portion of the shaft has threads and the disengagement portion of the shaft is unthreaded (see Fig. 1). Wherein the housing includes a threaded portion (33) that engages the threads of the engagement portion with the housing in the coupled position (see Fig. 1), and the threaded portion is disengaged from the threads of the engagement portion with the housing in the uncoupled position (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 13, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 12, wherein the threaded portion is configured to remain disengaged from the threads of the engagement portion during rotation of the shaft in the first direction with the housing in the uncoupled position (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 14, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 13, wherein the threaded portion is configured to engage the threads of the engagement portion during rotation of the shaft in a second direction that is opposite the first direction to move the housing from the uncoupled position to the coupled position (see Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 15, Hemperly further discloses the actuator of claim 13, wherein binding of the housing against the motor is limited when in the uncoupled position during rotation of the shaft in the first direction (see Fig. 1). 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. Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemperly et al. (US 3,159,758) in view of Lange et al. (US 6,761,080). Regarding Claims 6, 10, 11, Hemperly does not disclose that the biasing portion is a gasket, disc spring, nor wave spring for the actuator of claims 5, 8, nor 8 respectively. However, Lange teaches in a similar linear actuator (see Fig. 1), having a housing (14, 20), a shaft (11), motor (M), and biasing portion (28) wherein the biasing portion is a gasket (29) formed from a resilient material (see Fig. 1, showing the gasket in the form of a washer, which would be made of a material that can absorb energy and without permanent deformation, such as steel), a disc spring (30) (see Fig. 3, showing a plurality of axially stacked disc springs), or a wave spring (30) (see Fig. 3, showing the plurality of axially stacked disc springs form a wave spring). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute or supplement the biasing portion for the actuator disclosed in Hemperly with a gasket, disc spring, or wave spring as taught in Lange to simply substitute one know biasing element for another to obtain predictable results, based on the cost or availability of different types of biasing elements.1 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F. 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 at (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. /GREGORY ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618 1 See MPEP 2143 (I)(B)
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594680
FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590624
MANUAL SCREW SHAFT DRIVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576543
SOFT ROBOTICS, AUTONOMOUS, SPACE INSPECTION, CRAWLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560225
MOTORIZED SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560226
LINEAR DRIVE MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+16.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 353 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