Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/565,189

RUNNING GEAR COMPONENT HAVING A STRUCTURAL PART, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SUCH A RUNNING GEAR COMPONENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
WILEY, DANIEL J
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
ZF Friedrichshafen AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
556 granted / 781 resolved
+19.2% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
805
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 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 . 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) 1-4, 6, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0331313 to Bowden Jr. (hereinafter “Bowden”) in view of DE 102020206438 to Berger et al. (hereinafter “Berger”). -From Claim 1: Bowden discloses a chassis component with a structural part (200) comprising at least one strut section (212) having an open cross-section shape and having an end area with a first wall section (208, upper) and a second wall section (208, lower), the first wall section defining a first joint-receiving opening (open interior of 208) and the second wall section defining a second joint-receiving opening (open interior of 208) arranged opposite the first joint-receiving opening a joint housing (206) of a joint arranged in the first and second joint-receiving openings and an additional component (210) fixed between the first and second wall sections (208) and held on the joint housing (206) by means of a clamping fit and/or a press fit (Abstract). However, Bowden does not disclose: the additional component including a first sensor element. Berger teaches a chassis component similar to that of Bowden, wherein an additional component between first and second wall sections 6 and 8 includes a first sensor element 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bowden by adding a sensor as taught by Berger in order to provide a measuring device to, e.g., “detect and/or measure a relative rotation of the chassis component about a rotation axis of the bearing.” (¶6 of machine translation) -From Claim 2: Bowden discloses wherein the first wall section (208) comprises a first flange which forms the first joint-receiving opening and the second wall section (208) comprises a second flange which forms the second joint-receiving opening, wherein the first flange is oriented toward the second flange and the additional component (210) is arranged and/or clamped at least partially between the first flange and the second flange. -From Claim 3: Bowden discloses wherein the additional component (210) is fixed with interlock and by friction onto the joint housing (206) and arranged between the first and second flanges by a press fit of the joint housing (206) into the first and second joint-receiving openings and the first wall section (208) and/or the second wall section (208) and/or the joint housing (206) defines a further recess and/or a further raised portion, the additional component (210) defines a corresponding first raised portion and/or at least a first recess that engages the corresponding further recess and/or further raised portion thereby fixing a position of the additional component (e.g., 208 and 210 are both “raised” in the sense that they extend from their respective components 212, 214). -From Claim 4: Bowden discloses wherein the additional component (210) comprises a closed or an open ring or the additional component (210) is in the form of such a ring; and the additional component (210) is arranged between the first and second flanges of the wall sections (208), surrounds an outside of the joint housing (206) (see e.g., Fig. 3), and is held onto the joint housing (206) by interlock and/or by friction. -From Claim 6: Bowden does disclose: the joint (206) is a ball sleeve joint or an elastomer bearing (¶14). However, Bowden does not specifically disclose: [A] the structural part (200) is in the form of a sheet-metal control arm, or [B] the strut section (212) defines an open U-shaped or an open C-shaped cross-section. As to [A], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the structural part out of sheet metal, since sheet metal is known in the art for its use in chassis and/or automotive components, and 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. As to [B], It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the shape of the strut section in an open C- or U-shaped cross section, as this would be one way to reduce the amount of material needed to make the component, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. -From Claim 11: Bowden discloses a method for producing a chassis component, comprising: preparing a structural part comprising at least one strut section (212) defining an open cross- section shape: forming a strut section (212) having an end area with a first wall section (208) and a second wall section (208), wherein the first wall section defines a first joint-receiving opening and the second wall section defines a second joint-receiving opening arranged opposite the first joint-receiving opening; arranging an additional component (210) between the two wail sections (208); and arranging a joint housing (206) of a joint in the first and second joint-receiving openings, thereby fixing the additional component (210) between the first and second wail sections and on the joint housing (206) by means of a clamping fit and/or a press fit. However, Bowden does not disclose: arranging a first sensor element of the additional component between the two wall sections. Berger teaches a chassis component similar to that of Bowden, wherein an additional component between first and second wall sections 6 and 8 includes a first sensor element 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bowden by adding a sensor as taught by Berger in order to provide a measuring device to, e.g., “detect and/or measure a relative rotation of the chassis component about a rotation axis of the bearing.” (¶6 of machine translation) -From Claim 12: Bowden discloses pressing the joint housing (206) in the first and second joint-receiving openings (Abstract); and arranging at least a first raised portion and/or at least a first recess of the additional component (210) in a correspondingly shaped further recess and/or a further raised portion of the first wall section and/or the second wall section (e.g., 208 and 210 are both “raised” in the sense that they extend from their respective components 212, 214). -From Claim 13: Bowden discloses wherein arranging the first raised portion and/or the first recess of the additional component is performed with interlock. (Abstract) -From Claim 14: Bowden discloses arranging, prior to pressing the joint housing (206) in the first and second joint-receiving openings, a closed or open ring (210) of the additional component between the first and second flanges; surrounding, after pressing the joint housing (206) in the first and second joint-receiving openings, an outside of the joint housing (206) by the closed or open ring, and applying interlock and friction to hold the ring onto the joint housing (206). (See e.g., Fig. 3) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 15 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art is lacking a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Bowden such that: the additional component comprises a first sensor element and the second sensor element which cooperates with the first sensor element where in the second sensor is arranged on a joint inner portion of the joint and the first wall section and/or the second wall section and/or the joint housing comprises a clearance and/or non-magnetic screening section between the first sensor element and the second sensor element. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 11-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment (to claims 1 and 11 requiring that the additional component include a first sensor element) 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. /DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 2/18/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601367
CONNECTING MEMBER AND ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594867
DEVICE FOR ATTACHING A TUBE ONTO A HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577018
PACKING FASTENER AND PACKING BOX COUPLED TOGETHER THEREWITH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571215
SURFACE MOUNT CABLE INFILL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565962
MODULAR UTILITY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 781 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