Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/684,967

GEAR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 20, 2024
Examiner
ELAHMADI, ZAKARIA
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sew-Eurodrive GMBH & CO. Kg
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
580 granted / 761 resolved
+24.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
810
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.8%
+11.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 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. Claims 18-19, 30, 34-37, 40, 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being by White [EP 3643947]. Regarding claim 18: White shows a gear, comprising: a plurality of segments (see fig 9) arranged one behind another in a circumferential direction relative to an axis of rotation of the gear, each segment including a support region (55), a first flange region (363) arranged at a front in the circumferential direction, and a second flange region (363) arranged at a rear in the circumferential direction; wherein a first surface region (375) of the first flange region (363) of each segment lies against a second surface region (375) of the second flange region (363) of a next adjacent segment (see fig 11); wherein at least one screw (bolts , see fig 11) passes through and connects the first flange region (363) of each segment and the second flange region (363) of the next adjacent segment wherein the support region (55) of each segment includes a helical toothing (57) wherein the screw protrudes through the first surface region; and PNG media_image1.png 8 4 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein the first surface region (375) extends parallel to a tooth of the toothing that is adjacent to the first surface region (see translation “… In this embodiment the end face 375 is in a plane which is parallel to the longitudinal extent of the teeth 57…”). Regarding claim 19: White shows wherein the gear is arranged as a gear rim (see fig 9). Regarding claim 30: White shows wherein an axial direction of the gear is aligned parallel to a direction of the axis of rotation of the gear. Regarding claim 34: White shows wherein the first and/or second surface region (375) is flat and/or is substantially flat. Regarding claim 35: White shows wherein a normal direction of the first surface region (375) has a helix angle to a tangential direction that belongs to the first surface region and/or the first surface region is aligned parallel to the first flange region (see translation “… the helical gears exert/experience greater thrust loads than a spur gear. The magnitude of these thrust loads is dependent on the tangent of the helix angle…”). Regarding claim 36: White shows wherein a first stepped bore (73) is arranged the first surface region, the screw protruding through the stepped bore (see fig 10). Regarding claim 37: White shows wherein a bore axis of the first stepped bore is not aligned parallel to a normal direction of the first surface region and/or has a helix angle to the normal direction of the first surface region (see fig 11, the bore axis or the screw axis is at an angle with the normal direction of the surface region 375). Regarding claim 40: White shows wherein a second stepped bore (73) is arranged in the second surface region (375), the screw protruding through the second stepped bore (see fig 10). Regarding claim 41: White shows wherein a bore axis of the second stepped bore is not aligned parallel to a normal direction of the first surface region and/or has an angular amount of a helix angle to the normal direction of the first surface region (see fig 11, the bore axis or the screw axis is at an angle with the normal direction of the surface region 375). Regarding claim 44: White shows wherein a threaded nut is screwed onto a threaded region of the screw (see fig 11) to press together the first flange region of each segment and the second flange region of the next adjacent segment between the nut and a screw head of the screw (see fig 11). 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. Claims 20, 45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White [EP 3643947]. Regarding claim 20: White shows (second embodiment fig 17) wherein the surface region is flush with the tooth so that the tooth does not protrude beyond the first surface region and/or is recessed in the circumferential direction (see second embodiment figure 17). Regarding claim 45: White shows an annular gap (see second embodiment fig 17, surrounding 73) surrounds the screw in a region (a) arranged between a region of contact of the screw with the first flange region (363) and arranged between a region of contact of the screw with the second flange region and/or (b) that includes a region covered by the region of contact between the first and second surface regions in a screw axis direction It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have a gap/ clearance between bore and the surface region to accommodate for thermal expansion and contraction. Regarding claim 48: White shows wherein the surface region is flush with the tooth so that the tooth does not protrude beyond the first surface region. Claims 21-29, 31-33, 38-39, 42-43, 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White [EP 3643947] in view of Wu [DE 102016010084]. Regarding claim 21: White shows wherein the segment includes a blade region (359). White does not show struts, and the support region and the blade region are connected via the struts and also via the first flange region. However, Wu shows struts (22), and the support region and the blade region (3) are connected via the struts and also via the first flange region (see fig 2). Regarding claim 31: White shows wherein the support region (55), the blade region (359), the first flange region (363), the second flange region (363), White does not shows and the struts are integral with wherein the support region, the blade region, the first flange region , the second flange region, However Wu shows wherein the support region, the blade (3) region, the first flange region (24 +26), the second flange region (27 +29), and the struts (22) are integral (see fig 2). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have modified the gear structure with struts to support higher load and distribute and reduce load concentration. Regarding claim 22: White shows wherein the first flange region (363) is located radially between the support region (55) and the blade region (359, see fig 10). Regarding claim 23: White shows wherein the first flange region (363) is arranged at a front end region of the segment in the circumferential direction. Regarding claim 24: White shows wherein the support region (55) and the blade region (359) are connected via the second flange region (363). Regarding claim 25: White shows wherein the second flange region (363) is located radially between the support region (55) and the blade region (359). Regarding claim 26: White shows wherein the second flange region (363) is arranged at a rear end region of the segment in the circumferential direction. Regarding claims 27-29: White does not show wherein the struts are spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction by cutouts extending through in the axial direction. wherein each cutout has a clear width measured in the circumferential direction that increases with increasing radial distance. wherein each cutout has a clear width measured in the circumferential direction that increases with increasing radial distance in a radial distance range that exceeds at least 70% of a radial distance range covered by the cutouts in total. However, Wu shows wherein the struts (22) are spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction by cutouts (4) extending through in the axial direction (see fig 2). wherein each cutout (4) has a clear width measured in the circumferential direction that increases with increasing radial distance. wherein each cutout (4) has a clear width measured in the circumferential direction that increases with increasing radial distance in a radial distance range that exceeds at least 70% of a radial distance range covered by the cutouts in total. It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the cutout with width increasing in the radial distance to support radial force, gears experience higher load toward gear teeth away from the center. Regarding claims 32 and 33: White does not explicitly disclose wherein the segment is formed of one piece of steel. wherein the segment is made of ADI, a bainitic cast iron with nodular graphite, and/or a heat-treated ductile soheroidal graphite cast iron. Hiowever Wu shows wherein the segment is formed of one piece of steel (see translation). wherein the segment is made of ADI, a bainitic cast iron with nodular graphite, and/or a heat-treated ductile soheroidal graphite cast iron (see translation “…the segment is made of ADI or GGG cast steel…”). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the segment gear from of ADI, a bainitic cast iron with nodular graphite, and/or a heat-treated ductile soheroidal graphite cast iron to enhance strength and increase wear resistance. Regarding claim 38: White does not show shows wherein a minimum distance between a step of the first stepped bore and the first surface region is variable in the circumferential direction around a bore axis of the first stepped bore. However Wu shows wherein a minimum distance between a step of the first stepped bore and the first surface region is variable in the circumferential direction around a bore axis of the first stepped bore (“…Between the steps is a gap, in particular air gap. Thus, between the step, which is between the flange surface 24 and the flange surface 25 is arranged, and the step, which is between the flange surface 29 and flange surface 28 is arranged, arranged an air gap, so that the two stages are slightly spaced apart in the axial direction…”). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have a gap/ clearance between bore and the surface region to accommodate for thermal expansion and contraction. Regarding claim 39:White does not shows wherein a clear internal diameter of the first stepped bore increases monotonically with increasing distance from the first surface region. However Wu shows wherein a clear internal diameter of the first stepped bore increases monotonically with increasing distance from the first surface region (see translation “…wherein the circumferential angular positions of the flange surfaces are spaced apart from each other, especially in the circumferential direction strictly monotonically increase with increasing axial position of the flange surfaces. ..”). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have a gap/ clearance between bore and the surface region to accommodate for thermal expansion and contraction. Regarding claim 42: White does not show shows a minimum distance between a step of the second stepped bore and the second surface region is variable in the circumferential direction around a bore axis of the second stepped bore . However Wu shows a minimum distance between a step of the second stepped bore (21) and the second surface region is variable in the circumferential direction around a bore axis of the second stepped bore (21). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have a gap/ clearance between bore and the surface region to accommodate for thermal expansion and contraction. Regarding claim 43: White does not shows wherein a clear internal diameter of the second stepped bore increases monotonically with increasing distance from the second surface region. However Wu shows wherein a clear internal diameter of the second stepped bore (21) increases monotonically with increasing distance from the second surface region (see translation “…wherein the circumferential angular positions of the flange surfaces are spaced apart from each other, especially in the circumferential direction strictly monotonically increase with increasing axial position of the flange surfaces...”). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have a gap/ clearance between bore and the surface region to accommodate for thermal expansion and contraction. Regarding claim 46: White does not shows the first flange region includes a cutout that extends through in the circumferential direction and that has a clear diameter, a largest inside diameter, and/or a clear opening region that decreases monotonically in the circumferential direction with increasing distance from the first surface region, and/or the second flange region includes a cutout that extends through in the circumferential direction and that has a clear diameter, a largest inside diameter, and/or a clear opening region that decreases monotonically counter to the circumferential direction with increasing distance from the second surface region. However Wu shows the first flange region (24 +26) includes a cutout (4) that extends through in the circumferential direction and that has a clear diameter, a largest inside diameter, and/or a clear opening region that decreases monotonically in the circumferential direction with increasing distance from the first surface region, and/or the second flange region includes a cutout (4) that extends through in the circumferential direction and that has a clear diameter, a largest inside diameter, and/or a clear opening region that decreases monotonically counter to the circumferential direction with increasing distance from the second surface region (27+29). It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the cutout with width increasing in the radial distance to support radial force, gears experience higher load toward gear teeth away from the center. Regarding claim 47: Wu shows wherein with increasing distance from the first surface region (24+26), a clear inside diameter of the first stepped bore (21) is arranged according to a decreasing, smooth, and/or continuously differentiable function following a region of contact between the screw and a wall of the stepped bore (21). PNG media_image2.png 799 663 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 794 501 media_image3.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal brief, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 18-47 under 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of White [EP 364947]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 23, 2025
Response Filed
May 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600191
An Off-road Vehicle and Suspension for Such Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602064
ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577087
OPERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578007
LINEAR DRIVE APPARATUS FOR CONVERTING A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT INTO A LINEAR MOVEMENT AND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560227
BALL SCREW DRIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
76%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+6.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 761 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