Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/560,783

ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
SHELTON, IAN BRYCE
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kubota Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
186 granted / 240 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
268
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 240 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 . 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. Claim(s) 9-10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doi (JP 2017024710 A). Regarding claim 9, Doi discloses an electric work vehicle (tractor 1, figs.1-8) comprising: a battery (battery 9 an battery storage box 8, fig.4); a motor (electric motor 6, fig.4) to be driven by electric power supplied from the battery; wheels (wheels 3 and 4, fig.3) to be driven by the motor; at least one first frame (front vehicle body frame 5a, figs.4-5 and 7) extending in a front-rear direction of a body of the electric work vehicle to support the battery; a motor frame (rear plate 41, figs.4-5 and 7) to be coupled to a rear portion of the at least one first frame to support the motor; a second frame (rear vehicle body frame 5b, figs.4-5 and 7) extending in the front-rear direction of the body and located rearward of the at least one first frame; and a third frame (reinforcement frame 5d, figs.5 and 7) overlapping the at least one first frame and the second frame in a side view, and coupled to the at least one first frame and the second frame (figs.5 and 7). Regarding claim 10, Doi discloses wherein a front end portion of the second frame is coupled to the motor frame (rear body frame 5b is coupled to the rear plate 41 through the front body frame 5a, figs.4 and 7). Regarding claim 13, Doi discloses wherein the at least one first frame includes a plurality of first frames (front body frames 5a, figs.4-5 and 7); the plurality of first frames include two first frames arranged in the left-right direction of the body (front body frames 5a, figs.4-5 and 7); and the electric work vehicle further comprises a bottom plate (protective cover 58 is couples to frames 5a and protects motor 6, fig.4) coupled to the two first frames to extend across a lower portion of the left first frame and a lower portion of the right first frame. Regarding claim 16, Doi discloses further comprising: a cab (seat 13, fig.1) to allow an operator to ride therein; wherein the motor frame is located forward of and below the cab (figs.1 and 4); and the battery extends from a rear end portion to a front portion of the at least one first frame (fig.4). 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. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (JP 2017024710 A). Regarding claim 14, Doi discloses wherein at least a portion of an electric wire (electric wire 46 for connecting battery 9 to electric motor 6, fig.1) to be connected to the motor is located in a space above the bottom plate (wire 46 routed along the body frame 5 is above protective cover 58, figs.1 and 4) and sandwiched between the two first frames (wire 46 is routed along the body frame 5 and fixed by a clamp 47, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to run the wire between the frames 5a to help protect the wire). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (JP 2017024710 A) in view of Iino (JP 2000177652 A) Regarding claim 15, Doi discloses the electric work vehicle of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the bottom plate includes an inspection port; and the electric work vehicle further comprises a cover to cover the inspection port and be detachable from the inspection port. However, Iino discloses the bottom plate (115, fig.8) includes an inspection port (inspection port 116, fig.8); and the electric work vehicle further comprises a cover (cover 119, fig.8) to cover the inspection port and be detachable from the inspection port (fig.8). Doi and Iino are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Doi with the inspection port and cover of Iino with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing easier access to the drive system for routine maintenance and inspections. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-12 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. Claim 11 depends upon claim 10 which is rejected but claim 11 has the limitation of “further comprising: a gear case located rearward of the motor frame and coupled to the motor frame; wherein the gear case houses one or more gears each to be rotated by driving force of the motor; and the front end portion of the second frame is coupled to the motor frame via the gear case.” Doi discloses further comprising: a gear case (transmission case 19, fig.4) located rearward of the motor frame and coupled to the motor frame; wherein the gear case houses one or more gears each to be rotated by driving force of the motor (transmissions have gears and transmission case 19 has transmissions 29, 30, and 34 driven by motor 6 via shaft 33, figs.4 and 7); but fails to disclose the front end portion of the second frame is coupled to the motor frame via the gear case. The second frame (5b) is coupled to the motor frame (41) through the first frame (5a), and the gear case (19) is not located close to the motor frame (41) as there is a shaft (33) that connects the motor (6) to the gear case (19) as seen in figure 4. Having the front end of the second frame (5b) coupled to the motor frame (41) via the gear case (19) would require serious reconstruction of the drive assembly and would be hindsight. For the reasons above claim 11 has allowable subject matter. Claim 12 depends upon claim 11 giving it the same allowable subject matter as discussed above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. 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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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. /IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600396
BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589791
HANDRAIL MECHANISM AND BABY CARRIAGE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583528
MOVING OBJECT CABIN AND MOVING OBJECT INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583497
SINGLE-OPERATOR MULTI-FUNCTION FOLDABLE TRANSPORTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576912
VEHICLE CHASSIS AND VEHICLE
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
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 240 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