Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/530,016

COMMON OIL DISTRIBUTOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Examiner
SETZER, NICHOLAS LEE
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dana Automotive Systems Group LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
26 granted / 41 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
75
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 41 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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed February 24, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-20 were previously pending; claims 11 and 12 were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-10 and 13-20 are now pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered. The Applicant's first point (page 8 of Remarks) amends independent claim 9 to include the subject matter of claim 11 and 12. Claim 12 was previously indicated to possess allowable subject matter, thus claim 9 is now in condition for allowance. The Applicant's second point (page 8-9 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include limitations that overcome the prior grounds of rejections. New grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment are provided below. The Applicant's third point (page 9-10 of Remarks) amends claim 17 and 18 to include limitations that overcome the prior grounds of rejections. The new limitations over come the current grounds of rejection and can not be found in the prior art. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COX (US 20210152047 A1). Regarding claim 1, COX teaches: An oil distributor(Fig 1; 15), comprising: a first distribution channel(Fig 4; a)(the first distribution elements are denoted by a) comprising a first inlet section with a first inlet(Fig 4; 26a), and a first outlet section(Fig 4; 17a)[0059-0060]; and a second distribution channel(Fig 4; b)(the second distribution elements are denoted by b) comprising a second inlet section with a second inlet(Fig 4; 26b), and a second outlet section(Fig 4; 17b) [0059-0060], wherein: the first and second inlet sections (Fig 4; 26a/b)are included in a main body (Fig 4; 15)and the first and second outlet sections(Fig 4; 17a/b) protrude radially away from the main body (Fig 4; 15)in opposite directions; the first outlet section and the second outlet section (Fig 4; 26a/b)are positioned coaxial with each other (coaxial shown in Fig 5 and 6 of COX); the first inlet and the second inlet (Fig 4; 26a/b)are positioned coaxial with each other, and at opposite ends of the main body(Fig 4; 15); and the first distribution channel (Fig 4; a)distributes oil to a first rotor shaft (Fig 4; 8a)coupled to a first electric motor (Fig 1; 2a)and the second distribution channel(Fig 4; b) distributes oil to a second rotor shaft (Fig 4; 8b)coupled to a second electric motor(Fig 1; 2b). PNG media_image1.png 424 584 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 384 369 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 332 264 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 329 539 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 485 608 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify COX because they discloses the oil distributor of claim 1 except for rearrangement of the first inlet and the second inlet being positioned coaxial with each other along an axis perpendicular to the first outlet section and the second outlet section. It would have been an obvious matter of rotating one partial machine 180 degrees about the axis of rotation in order to have the first inlet and the second inlet positioned coaxial with each other along an axis perpendicular to the first outlet section and the second outlet section; thus, allowing coolant to be delivered through the whole machine more asymmetrically, and allowing a more evenly distributed cooling across the whole machine. Rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 2, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 1: wherein the main body further (Fig 4; 15) comprises a first outer rim(Fig 4; 18a) and a second outer rim(Fig 4; 18b)[0062], the first and second outer rims (Fig 4; 18a/b)positioned circumferentially about the main body(Fig 4; 15). Regarding claim 3, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 2: wherein the first and second outer rims (Fig 4; 18a/b)define therebetween a first groove (Fig 5; 30a)and a second groove(Fig 5; 30b), wherein the first groove(Fig 5; 30a) is in fluid communication with the first inlet section (Fig 5; 26a)via the first inlet(Fig 5; 26a)[0062] and the second groove is (Fig 5; 30b)in fluid communication with the second inlet section(Fig 5; 26b) via the second inlet(Fig 5; 26b)(rims 18a and 18b are identical [0053] therefor second groove has the same properties as the first groove). Regarding claim 4, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 3: wherein the first distribution channel (Fig 5; a) is configured to direct oil from the first groove (Fig 5; 30a)to the first outlet (Fig 5; 17a)via the first inlet section(Fig 5; 26a) and the first outlet section (Fig 5; 17a)and the second distribution channel (Fig 5; b)is configured to direct oil from the second groove (Fig 5; 30b)to the second outlet (Fig 5; 17b)via the second inlet section (Fig 5; 26b)and the second outlet section(Fig 5; 17b)[0062]. Regarding claim 5, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 3: wherein the first and second grooves(Fig 5; 30a/b) are separated by a dividing wall (Fig 9; 28)of the main body(Fig 9; 15). Regarding claim 6, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 3: wherein the first groove(Fig 5; 30a) is in fluid communication with a first oil inlet (Fig 5; 26a)and the second groove (Fig 5; 30b)is in fluid communication with a second oil inlet(Fig 5; 26b), wherein oil entering the oil distributor via the first oil inlet (Fig 5; 26a) is conditioned for the first electric motor (Fig 1; 2a)[0060]and oil entering the oil distributor via the second oil inlet (Fig 5; 26b)is conditioned for the second electric motor(Fig 5; 2b). Regarding claim 7, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 1: wherein the first and second outlet sections(Fig 1; 17a/b) are positioned coaxial (shown in Fig 1)with each other and with a shared axis of rotation of the first and second rotor shafts(Fig 1; 8). Regarding claim 8, COX teaches the oil distributor of claim 7: wherein the first and second inlet sections (Fig 4; 26a/b) are parallel to each other and positioned at an angle(perpendicular) respective to the shared axis of rotation(Fig 4; 8), the first inlet section (Fig 5; 26a)positioned towards a first end (axial towards motor 2a) of the oil distributor and the second inlet section(Fig 5; 26b) positioned towards a second end (axial towards motor 2b) of the oil distributor. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-10 and 13-20 are allowed. Regarding claim 9: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: COX (US 20210152047 A1) and COX 2 (US 20190199170 A1)teaches: An electric drive unit, comprising: a first electric motor and a second electric motor arranged in a back-to-back configuration; and a common oil distributor positioned between the first electric motor and the second electric motor, the common oil distributor comprising; a first distribution channel configured to distribute oil to the first electric motor and a second distribution channel configured to distribute oil to the second electric motor, wherein the first distribution channel comprises a first inlet in fluid communication with a first outlet via a first inlet section and a first outlet section and the second distribution channel comprises a second inlet in fluid communication with a second outlet via a second inlet section and a second outlet section; and a first outer rim and a second outer rim positioned circumferentially about a main body. However, COX (US 20210152047 A1) and COX 2 (US 20190199170 A1) does not teach: the first and second outer rims comprise o-ring seals (The underlined is allowable subject matter.) Claims 9-16 are allowed, and not rejected, because the limitation of the first and second outer rims comprise o-ring seals is too specific which makes it novel. The prior art teach the claimed sealing through a press fit method, but does not teach the claimed sealing using an o-ring, this is what makes it novel. Claims 10 and 13-16 are also allowed because they depend from allowed claims 9. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Regarding claim 17: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: COX (US 20210152047 A1) and COX 2 (US 20190199170 A1)teaches: An oil distribution system for an electric drive unit, comprising: an oil distributor comprising a main body with a first outer rim and a second outer rim that are circumferential about the main body and define therebetween, wherein the oil distributor is positioned between a first rotor shaft coupled to a first electric motor and a second rotor shaft coupled to a second electric motor, wherein the first and second electric motors are arranged in a back-to-back configuration, and the oil distributor is configured to: receive, at the first groove, oil conditioned for the first electric motor from a first oil inlet; receive, at the second groove, oil conditioned for the second electric motor from a second oil inlet; distribute oil from the first oil inlet to the first rotor shaft via a first distribution channel; and distribute oil from the second oil inlet to the second rotor shaft via a second distribution channel. However, COX (US 20210152047 A1) and COX 2 (US 20190199170 A1) does not teach: a first groove and a second groove that are separated by a dividing wall that is perpendicular to a circumference of the main body (The underlined is allowable subject matter.). Claims 17-20 are allowed, and not rejected, because the limitation of a dividing wall that is perpendicular to a circumference of the main body may be rearrangeable but would lead the prior art to be inoperable. Claims 18-20 are also allowed because they depend from allowed claims 17. Citation of Relevant Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior Art: COX 2 (US 20190199170 A1) teaches the sealing limitation of claim 12 using a press fit not an o-ring as claimed. COX 2 is also skewed at an angle like the present application. PNG media_image6.png 404 629 media_image6.png Greyscale 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 NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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. /N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589880
ROTOR, AND PROPELLER DRIVING DEVICE AND AIRCRAFT USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592605
COOLING SYSTEM FOR DRIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580436
STATOR ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573895
ROTOR PUNCHING SHEET, MOTOR ROTOR, MOTOR AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558707
TRANSDUCER AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 41 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