Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/637,884

DRIVE SYSTEM AND VEHICLE WITH A DRIVE SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Examiner
WU, LORI SOUTHARD
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
IMS Gear SE & Co. KGaA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
355 granted / 402 resolved
+36.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
415
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 402 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 18/637,884. Claims 1-16 are pending. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because for example the legal phraseology such as “means” and reference to a figure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 10, claim 11, and claim 12, the claims are directed to the wheel carrier which is part of claim 8, instead of being dependent on claim 7, the claims should be dependent on claim 8. 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 1-16 are 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. Regarding claim 1, line 1, claim 7, line 2, claim 14, line 3, and claim 16, line 1, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase “in particular” raises the issue of a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Regarding claim 6, lines 3 and 4 (two instances), claim 8, line 2, and claim 12, line 2, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase “preferably” raises the issue of a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claims 2-16 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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. (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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blomstrom (US Patent 3800901). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Blomstrom discloses a drive system (Fig. 3, 12), in particular for a vehicle, comprising a driven unit (driving sprocket 11), a drive unit (16) for driving the driven unit, a drive interface (23, 24, 26) by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the drive unit, at least one brake unit (brake 63) for braking the driven unit, and at least one brake interface (spline for 66 on 18) which is different from the drive interface and by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the at least one brake unit, wherein the at least one brake interface has a transmission stage (gear 18 with gear 21) with a driven-side transmission (21) component arranged on the driven unit and a brake-side transmission component arranged on the at least one brake unit (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 2, Blomstrom discloses the drive system according to claim 1, characterized in that each of the at least one brake interface has exactly one transmission stage (Fig. 3, gears 18, 21). Regarding claim 4, Blomstrom discloses the drive system according to claim1, characterized in that the brake-side transmission component is an externally toothed pinion (shown in Fig. 3). Regarding claim 5, Blomstrom discloses the drive system according to claim 4, characterized in that the pinion is arranged on a brake shaft of the brake unit (shown in Fig. 3). Claims 1, 6-9, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii (European document EP2332760, cited on the IDS). Regarding claim 1, Ishii discloses a drive system (Fig. 6a), in particular for a vehicle, comprising a driven unit (e.g. axle 4), a drive unit (e.g. assembly 2) for driving the driven unit, a drive interface (shown in Fig. 6A, e.g. 71) by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the drive unit, at least one brake unit (brake arm 60) for braking the driven unit, and at least one brake interface (Fig. 6a) which is different from the drive interface and by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the at least one brake unit, wherein the at least one brake interface has a transmission stage with a driven- side transmission component (e.g. 67) arranged on the driven unit and a brake-side transmission component (e.g. 65) arranged on the at least one brake unit. Regarding claim 6, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 1 characterized in that a drive-side component of the drive interface is arranged, preferably directly, on the drive unit (Fig. 6a, e.g. 3 or 42) and/or a driven-side component of the drive interface is arranged, preferably directly, on the driven unit (Fig. 6a, 4 or 51). Regarding claim 7, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 1, characterized in that the driven unit is a wheel (drive wheel 12), in particular an impeller. Regarding claim 8, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 7, characterized in that the wheel has a, preferably funnel-shaped, wheel carrier, comprising a first wheel carrier part (e.g. 69) and a second wheel carrier part (e.g. 66), the driven-side transmission component being arranged on the second wheel carrier part (Fig. 6a). Regarding claim 9, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 8, characterized in that the second wheel carrier part is detachably arranged on the first wheel carrier part (shown in Fig. 6a) or the wheel carrier is a single piece. Regarding claim 13, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 1 characterized in that the brake unit is a spring-loaded brake with a first friction partner and a second friction partner, the first friction partner being arranged in a rotationally fixed manner on a brake shaft of the brake unit (paragraph [0164]). Regarding claim 14, Ishii discloses the drive system according to claim 1 characterized in that the at least one brake unit comprises a plurality of brake units, in particular two brake units, and the drive system has a corresponding number of brake interfaces (Figs. 3-5). Regarding claim 16, Ishii discloses a vehicle, in particular an industrial truck, comprising a drive system according to claim 1 (Fig. 1). Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuno (US Patent Publication 20130248303). Regarding claim 1, Okuno discloses a drive system, in particular for a vehicle, comprising a driven unit (e.g. 27), a drive unit (e.g. 21) for driving the driven unit, a drive interface (e.g. 12) by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the drive unit, at least one brake unit (31) for braking the driven unit, and at least one brake interface which is different from the drive interface (shown in Fig. 2) and by means of which the driven unit can be coupled to the at least one brake unit (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the at least one brake interface has a transmission stage with a driven-side transmission component (shown in Fig. 2) arranged on the driven unit and a brake-side transmission component (shown in Fig. 2) arranged on the at least one brake unit. Regarding claim 3, Okuno discloses the drive system according to claim 1 characterized in that the driven-side transmission component is designed as an internally toothed ring gear (e.g. 15B). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-12 and 15 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. Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barna (US Patent Publication 20200324635) disclose a drive system with drive unit, driven unit, and brake. Munster (US Patent Publication 20140011620) discloses a drive system with electric motor and drive unit. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST. 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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. /LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603374
BATTERY-MOUNTED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601399
LUBRICATION CONTROL APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583355
Battery Replacement Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576707
CORNER MODULE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576802
ELECTRIFIED FIRE FIGHTING 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
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 402 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