Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/535,885

DRIVE UNIT FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
STABLEY, MICHAEL R
Art Unit
3611
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shimano Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1097 granted / 1277 resolved
+33.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1277 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Objections Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: line 11 states “the transmission stage” where it should state “the transmission ratio”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Strauss (DE 10 2013 013 315). In re claim 1, Strauss discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle provided on an axle (6) of a wheel (wheel hub shell 12) of the human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser (chain drive) configured to receive a human driving force (via sprocket 1); a transmission device (friction transmission 2) including a plurality of transmission stages and configured to receive the human driving force via the speed increaser; and a speed reducer (planetary gear stage 3) configured to receive the human driving force via the transmission device (as shown in Figure 1). In re claim 21, Strauss further discloses a motor (see [0007]) configured to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle. 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 2-8, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss. In re claims 2-4, Strauss discloses the drive unit according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the speed reducer has a reduction ratio that is 0.15 or greater and 0.3 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reduction ratio of 0.15 or greater and 0.3 or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. In re claims 5 and 6, Strauss discloses the drive unit according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the speed increaser, the transmission device, and the speed reducer includes a metal or resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the speed increaser, the transmission device, and the speed reducer out of metal or resin, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re claim 7, Strauss discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising a speed increaser (chain drive) configured to receive a human driving force (via sprocket 1); and a transmission device (friction transmission 2) including a plurality of transmission stages and configured to receive the human driving force via the speed increaser, but does not specifically disclose the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 11 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 11 or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. In re claim 8, Strauss further discloses wherein the speed increaser (chain drive) includes at least one of a gear (sprocket 1), a pulley, and an endless annular member. In re claims 16-18, Strauss discloses the drive unit according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the speed-increasing ratio is 9 or greater and 14 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 9 or greater and 14 or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. In re claim 20, Strauss further discloses a crank axle (6) of the human-powered vehicle. Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggan (US 2023/0002005) In re claim 15, Duggan discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser (122) configured to receive a human driving force (via pedals 112), the speed increaser including a speed increaser rotation input unit (126) configured to receive the human driving force and a speed increaser rotation output unit (124) configured to output the human driving force; the speed increaser rotation input unit having a speed increaser input rotational axis (axis of shaft 122B); the speed increaser rotation output unit having a speed increaser output rotational axis (axis of shaft 122A) aligned coaxially with the speed increaser input rotational axis (as shown in Figures 4 and 6); and the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 2.75 (see [0083]), but does not disclose a ratio 3 or greater and 20 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 20 or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. In re claim 19, Duggan discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle (100), the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser (122) configured to receive a human driving force (via pedals 112), the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 2.75 (see [0083]), but does not disclose a ratio of 6 or greater and 20 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 6 or greater and 20 or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein: the transmission stages each have a different transmission ratio; the transmission device includes a transmission device input unit configured to receive the human driving force, and a transmission device output unit configured to output the human driving force; the transmission ratio is a ratio of a rotational speed of the transmission device output unit to a rotational speed of the transmission device input unit” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a transmission device separate from the speed increaser and including a plurality of transmission stages having different transmission ratios configured to receive the human driving force via the speed increaser. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach bicycle drives of interest. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30. 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 01, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583509
Assisted Steering Apparatus And Associated Systems And Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583510
ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT AND ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575485
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE VEHICLE WITH TRACTION AND STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576933
SCREEN FOR SADDLE-RIDING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576944
BICYCLE SHOCK ABSORBER STRUCTURE AND BICYCLE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1277 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