Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/537,016

TRAVELING VEHICLE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Examiner
LEWIS, TISHA D
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1075 granted / 1227 resolved
+35.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1258
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1227 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION The following is a response to the amendment filed 9/8/2025 which has been entered. Response to Amendment Claims 1-6 are pending in the application. -The objection to the specification has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the abstract accordingly. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. -Applicant’s argument pertaining to Janson lacking the three planetary gear mechanism elements has been acknowledged. However, Janson does disclose in Figure 4, a planetary gear mechanism 92 and 120 which meets the limitations as recited. Although Janson considers the mechanism 120 to be a “differential”, it is still a “planetary mechanism”. -Applicant’s argument pertaining to the difference in driving methods between Janson and the present invention indicates that each invention addresses different technical challenges and approaches to implementation and that differential functional objectives highlight the uniqueness of each invention has been acknowledged. However, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim regardless of applicant’s opinion that the Janson art uses a different technical challenge, implementation and functional objectives. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janson 20090188732. As to claim 1, Janson discloses a traveling vehicle in which an internal combustion engine (12), a main drive wheel (18, 19), and a sub drive wheel (28, 29) are supported on a traveling machine body, and the internal combustion engine drives the main drive wheel through a traveling transmission mechanism (14, 16), the traveling vehicle comprising: an electric motor (Figure 4; 34) and a planetary gear mechanism (92,120) that are provided inside an axle case (32) that supports the sub drive wheel, wherein in three elements of the planetary gear mechanism, a first element (102) is interlockingly connected to the electric motor, a second element (122) is interlockingly connected to the sub drive wheel, and a third element (124) is interlockingly connected to an output side of the traveling transmission mechanism. As to claim 5, a power take-out portion (via 22, 26) for the sub drive wheel, which is provided on an output side of the traveling transmission mechanism, wherein the power take-out portion includes a switching mechanism (52) that switches a drive form of the main drive wheel and the sub drive wheel among "drive only the sub drive wheel" ([0032]; [0022], lines 8-11), “all-wheel drive" ([0022], lines 1-8), and "drive only the main drive wheel" ([(0033] generator power); and when the switching mechanism is switched to the "drive only the sub drive wheel", power transmission from the traveling transmission mechanism to the third element of the planetary gear mechanism is disconnected in a braking state (via 52), and the sub drive wheel is rotated and driven by drive of the electric motor ([0032]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4 are 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. See reasons for allowance indicated for claim 2 in the previous office action filed 5/7/25. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm. 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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. Tdl /TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 October 18, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601395
ELECTRIC AXLE DRIVE FOR AN AXLE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, IN PARTICULAR OF AN AUTOMOBILE, AND A MOTOR VEHICLE, IN PARTICULAR AN AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600357
COMPUTER SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592441
VIBRATION ISOLATORS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE-BATTERY ENCLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592440
BATTERY PACK CASING HAVING CRUSH RESISTANCE AND THERMAL INSULATION FOR ELECTRIFIED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590867
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 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