Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/579,027

A MULTI-STAGE CHAIN TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE FOR AN ALL-TERRAIN KART

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
SHELTON, IAN BRYCE
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
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

§112
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 Objections Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, “the second-stage sprocket-chain transmission” should say “the second-stage chain-sprocket transmission” Claims 2-8 should start with “The multi-stage transmission structure” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2-8 recites the limitation: Claim 2, “the first-stage chain transmission support bracket” should say “a first-stage chain transmission support bracket” Claim 2, “the output shaft” should say “an output shaft” Claim 2, “the coaxially mounted second-stage chain transmission support bracket” should say “a coaxially mounted second-stage chain transmission support bracket” Claim 2, “the bearing holes” should say “bearing holes” Claim 2, “the Y-shaped coaxial articulated bearing seat” should say “a Y-shaped coaxial articulated bearing seat” Claim 2, “the large sprocket” should say “a large sprocket” Claim 2, “the second-stage chain transmission support frame” should say “a second-stage chain transmission support frame” Claim 3, “the first-stage and second-stage chain transmission support frames” should say “a first-stage and the second-stage chain transmission support frames” Claim 4, “the axis center” should say “an axis center” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 has objections as discussed above, but would be allowable once claim objects are resolved. Claim 1 has the limitation of “A multi-stage chain transmission structure for an all-terrain kart, the multi-stage chain transmission structure for an all-terrain kart comprises a first-stage chain-sprocket transmission combination and a second-stage chain-sprocket transmission combination; a two-stage chain transmission structure, working in conjunction with an engine on an independent suspension and steering knuckle transmission half-shaft combination of an all-terrain kart body; and a third-stage chain transmission structure, equipped with a chain transmission combination and working in conjunction on an upper position of an integral driving axle of a non-independent suspension; the multi-stage chain transmission structure comprises the two-stage chain transmission structure, when the second-stage sprocket-chain transmission combination is not used, the first-stage chain-sprocket transmission is working in conjunction with the engine on the upper position of the integral driving axle of the non-independent suspension of the all-terrain kart body, and equipped with the chain transmission combination.” Gao (CN 110217103 A) discloses a multi-stage transmission structure (plurality of belts and pulleys as seen in figures 1-4) for a mobile device, comprising a first stage transmission (belt A8 with wheels, fig.4), a second stage transmission (wheels 4 and 16 and belt as seen in figure 1), a motor (motors 19/A9, A3, figs.2-4), a third transmission (wheels 13 and belt 6, fig.1). Gao fails to disclose the transmissions are chain-sprocket transmissions, engine on an independent suspension, and when the second-stage chain-sprocket transmission combination is not used, the first-stage chain-sprocket transmission is working in conjunction with the engine on the upper position of the integral driving axle of the non-independent suspension of the all-terrain kart body, and equipped with the chain transmission combination. Arnold (US 20090223730 A1) discloses a multi-stage transmission for a vehicle (motorcycle 10 with transmissions as seen in figures 1-8), comprising a first stage transmission (wheel 30, belt 54, wheel 52, fig.6), a second stage transmission (belt 46, members 42 and 44, figs.6-7), a third stage chain-sprocket transmission (members 90, 92, and chain 96, figs.5-8), a CVT (40, figs.1-2), suspension (figs.4-7), and engine (engine 26, fig.1). Arnold fails to disclose all of the transmissions are chain-sprocket transmissions, engine on an independent suspension, and when the second-stage chain-sprocket transmission combination is not used, the first-stage chain-sprocket transmission is working in conjunction with the engine on the upper position of the integral driving axle of the non-independent suspension of the all-terrain kart body, and equipped with the chain transmission combination. Yates (US 20120080249 A1) discloses all transmissions being chain-sprocket transmission (chains 162, 152, 154, with sprockets, figs.1A and 5). Montague (US 20020063011 A1) discloses semi-independent suspension for drivetrain system of vehicles. None of the prior art discloses “when the second-stage chain-sprocket transmission combination is not used, the first-stage chain-sprocket transmission is working in conjunction with the engine on the upper position of the integral driving axle of the non-independent suspension of the all-terrain kart body, and equipped with the chain transmission combination.” The prior art neither alone or in combination discloses or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 1 without hindsight or serious reconstruction. For the above reasons claim 1 has allowable subject matter. Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2-8 depend upon claim 1 giving them the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 discussed above, but have 112 issues discussed above as well. 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

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (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 for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month