Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,353

VEHICLE DRIVE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Examiner
YOUNG, EDWIN
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Meidensha Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
825 granted / 904 resolved
+39.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
922
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 904 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . This is the first action on the merits for application 18/693,353. Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 3/19/2024, Claims 6-13 are currently pending in this application. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2022/036090, filed on 9/28/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/19/2024, 5/31/2024 and 3/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the flat-pate portion” should be changed to - -the flat-plate portion- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 7, line 2, “a flat-plate portion”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “at least capacitor” should be changed to - -at least the capacitor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 6, line 4, “a capacitor”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “at least capacitor” should be changed to - -at least the capacitor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 6, line 4, “a capacitor”). Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 6 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/693,390 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claims 6 and 7 of the instant application are fully contained by Claim 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/693,390. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Should the double patenting rejection above be overcome, Claims 6 and 7 would be allowed. Claims 8-13 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 does not disclose nor render obvious a vehicle drive device wherein the cover is integrated with a cooling unit through which a coolant for cooling the inverter flows, and the capacitor and the semiconductor module are attached to a lower surface of the cover, in combination with the other elements required by independent Claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no rationale, absent hindsight, to modify the prior art to derive the claimed invention since the above-mentioned limitations, in combination with the other claim limitations, are considered new and nonobvious improvements over the prior art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HELWICH et al. (US 2023/0328911 A1) discloses an inverter system for a motor vehicle drive train (see ABSTRACT). KOBAYASHI et al. (US 2023/0238911 A1) discloses a motor control system (see Fig. 3). JP 2021029059 A discloses an inverter arrangement for supplying power to wheel drive motors (see Figs. 1-4). MAEDA et al. (US 2015/0305188 A1) discloses an electric power converter (see Figs. 3-5). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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. EDWIN YOUNG Primary Examiner Art Unit 3655 /Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601148
ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE WITH POWER CONSERVING WORK COMPONENT SUBSYSTEM PRECONDITIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600354
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GEAR SHIFTING MANAGEMENT IN COOPERATIVE ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601400
PLANETARY TRANSMISSION, IN PARTICULAR FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597831
COOLING SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRIC TRACTION MACHINE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590631
METHOD AND CONTROL DEVICE FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE DRIVELINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+5.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 904 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