Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/363,911

DUAL MOTOR DRIVE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
JIN, GEORGE C.
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
ZF Automotive UK Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
387 granted / 459 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
488
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 459 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because figure 11 should have text filled in the flow chart . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackl et al (US Patent no. 6,345,681) in view of Di Giusto et al (US Patent No. 9,079,604) Regarding claim 1, Hackl teaches A dual motor drive assembly, for use in a handwheel actuator assembly of a vehicle, comprises: a first gear connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft; (Z figure 1 rack) first (M1) and second (M2) motors, each motor having an output driving a respective output gear, the output gears being engaged with the first gear; (G1 and G2 figure 1 gear units) a torque allocation arrangement for allocating torque demands to each of the first and second motors according to a first mode and a second mode, (S control unit column 2 line 50-55) wherein in the first mode the torque demand allocated to the first motor follows a first profile and the torque demand allocated to the second motor follows a second profile, (Fz M1 figure 1 column 2 line 60-65, column 3 line 1-15 left turn steering wheel) wherein the first and second profiles represent defined relationships between a total torque demand and the torque demand allocated to one of the first and second motors, (M2 Fb column 2 line 65-67 column 3 line 1-5 left turn steering wheel) wherein in the second mode the torque demand allocated to the first motor follows the second profile and the torque demand allocated to the second motor follows the first profile, (column 3 line 5-120 right turn is M1 first motor follow a 2nd profile and M2 second motor follows a first profile) further comprising a switching arrangement operable to switch the torque allocations between the first mode and the second mode. (column 3 line 10-20 switching torque for left and right turns) Hackl does not explicitly teach however Di Giusto teaches a housing; (20 figure 1) a shaft rotatably mounted with respect to the housing; (8 figure 1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hackl based on the teachings of Di Guisto to teach a housing; a shaft rotatably mounted with respect to the housing. The motivation would be to keep the rack from harsh weather. Regarding claim 2, Hackl does not explicitly teach however Di Guisto teaches wherein the first gear comprises a wormwheel (90 figure 2 column 3 line 10-20), the first motor is operably connected to a first worm, the second motor is connected to a second worm and the wormwheel (12 figure 2 column 3 line 15-25) is operatively connected to a driver's steering wheel via the shaft (8 figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hackl based on the teachings of DiGuisto to teach wherein the first gear comprises a wormwheel, the first motor is operably connected to a first worm, the second motor is connected to a second worm and the wormwheel is operatively connected to a driver's steering wheel via the shaft. The motivation would be to vary convergence and divergence of wheel while vehicle is traveling (Di Guisto column 2 line 40-45). Regarding claim 3, Hackl teaches wherein the switching arrangement comprises an electronic control unit.(S figure 1 column 2 line 50-55) Regarding claim 4, Hackl teaches wherein the switching arrangement is configured to switch the torque allocations between the first mode and the second mode, and vice versa, after operating for a pre-determined period. (column 3 line 1-25 predetermined period is when driver decides to turn left and then turn right motors will switch torques). Regarding claim 5, Hackl teaches wherein the period is a fixed or randomised time period. (column 3 line 1-25 predetermined period is when driver decides to turn left and then turn right motors will switch torques). Regarding claim 6, Hackl teaches wherein the period is determined by an amount of operation, such includinq an angular distance travelled by the steering wheel or a distance travelled by the vehicle. (column 3 line 1-25 predetermined period is when driver decides to turn left and then turn right motors will switch torques). Regarding claim 7, Hackl teaches wherein the switching arrangement is configured to switch the torque allocations between the first mode and the second mode, and vice versa, when the dual motor drive assembly is powered-up at a start of a journey. (column 3 line 1-25 torque allocation is when driver decides to turn left and then turn right motors will switch torques). Regarding claim 8, Hackl teaches wherein the torque allocations may be switched after a fixed number of journeys (column 3 line 1-25 driver decides how to steer the wheel during the journey and may turn the wheel left and right after a fixed journey which causes torque to be switched). Regarding claim 9, Hackl teaches wherein the electronic control unit includes a non- volatile memory that is operable to store the torque allocation to be used for the next journey. (S figure 1 column 2 line 50-55) Regarding claim 10, Hackl teaches wherein when a journey is started, the current allocation is read from the non-volatile memory. (S figure 1 column 2 line 50-55). Regarding claim 11, Hackl teaches wherein the allocation mode stored in the non-volatile memory is swapped to an alternate allocation mode ready for the next journey or powering up of the dual motor drive assembly. (column 4 line 20-40). Regarding claim 12, Hackl teaches wherein the switching arrangement is configured to switch the torque allocations between the first mode and the second mode, and vice versa, when the motors are both operating in the same direction. (column 3 line 40-50 M1 and M2 perform braking force in the same direction). Regarding claim 13, Hackl teaches wherein the switching arrangement is configured to switch the torque allocations between the first mode and the second mode, and vice versa, when the motors are both operating in the same direction and providing an equal torque output. (column 3 line 40-50 M1 and M2 perform braking force in the same direction). Regarding claim 14, Hackl teaches wherein a Schmitt trigger is used to detect when the torque demand exceeds a demand threshold, where the threshold is set at value equal or greater than the point at which the output torque from the first and second motor is equal, and at this threshold the allocated torques switches from the first mode to the second mode. (column 3 line 40-50 M1 and M2 perform braking force in the same direction). Regarding claim 15-20, see rejection to claim 14, 7, 12, 7 and 12 as the limitations are substantially similar. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM. 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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. /GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600429
UNIVERSAL ROTATION FRONT STEERING FOR A RIDING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600368
ZONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600327
DRIVING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS, DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594939
VEHICLE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589719
REMOTE CONTROL OF A BRAKE CONTROLLER FOR A TOWED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 459 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