Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/826,071

ELECTRIC CRAWLER VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Examiner
FLUHART, STACEY A
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
681 granted / 824 resolved
+30.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
849
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 824 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 4, 2025 has been entered. 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 12,214,821). Claim 1 Thompson discloses an electric crawler vehicle, comprising: a pair of left and right traveling crawlers (“track” and “tracks” referred to throughout specification and would be understood to be powered by elements 8); a traveling electric motor (12a and/or 12b) that generates traveling power to be transmitted to the pair of left and right traveling crawlers; and a turning electric motor (11) that generates turning power to be transmitted to the pair of left and right traveling crawlers, wherein the traveling electric motor (12a and/or 12b) and the turning electric motor (11) are disposed on one lateral side (left side in FIG. 1) of the electric crawler vehicle, and wherein the traveling electric motor (12a and/or 12b) and the turning electric motor (11) are disposed adjacent one another in a direction perpendicular to a width direction of the electric crawler vehicle (see FIG. 1 illustrating no intervening elements between the motors in the top to bottom direction). Claim 2 Thompson discloses a single speed reducer (gearbox 20; or alternatively only portion 40) to which the traveling electric motor (12a and/or 12b) and the turning electric motor (11) are assembled. Claim 3 Thompson discloses wherein the traveling electric motor (12a and/or 12b) and the turning electric motor (11) are disposed on the one lateral side (left side in FIG. 1) with respect to the speed reducer (20 or 40) (see FIG. 1). 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Irie et al. (JP 2013-193469A; hereinafter "Irie"). Claim 4 Thompson does not disclose a driver's seat on which an operator is seated, wherein the speed reducer is disposed below the driver's seat. However, Irie discloses a driver's seat (11) on which an operator is seated, wherein at least part of the transmission (e.g., 22, 24) is disposed below the driver's seat (see FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Dorgan to add a driver's seat over the transmission in order to provide a safe place for a driver to operate the vehicle and also to provide a small footprint in incorporating this seat. Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Hosozawa (US 2024/0262206). Claim 5 Thompson does not disclose a power take off electric motor that generates PTO power for driving a work machine, wherein when the speed reducer is assumed to be a first speed reducer, a PTO speed reducer to which the PTO electric motor is assembled is further provided as a second speed reducer. However, Hosozawa (see FIG. 1 or 3) discloses a power take off electric motor (7) that generates PTO power for driving a rotary work machine (45), wherein when the speed reducer is assumed to be a first speed reducer, a PTO speed reducer (35, 36, 41, 42) to which the PTO electric motor (7) is assembled is further provided as a second speed reducer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Dorgan to include an additional motor used to supply power to a PTO and an associated speed reducer as in Hosozawa in order to provide power to a rotary work machine not dependent on the state of the motors supplying power to the tracks. Claim 6 Thompson as modified to include the additional motor for a PTO/rotary working machine based on Hosozawa discloses wherein the PTO electric motor is disposed on the one lateral side with respect to the second speed reducer (see Hosozawa, FIG. 3 illustrating all of the motors on the same side of the associated transmissions/speed reducers; this would be the same as incorporated into Thompson). Claim 8 Thompson as modified discloses wherein the PTO electric motor (Hosozawa, 7) is disposed on a rear (there is no interrelation of rear and therefore the rear direction is interpreted as the direction from the two motors in Thompson to the motor added to Thompson, i.e., toward the PTO) of the traveling electric motor (Dorgan, 10) and the turning electric motor (Thompson, 11). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is 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 combination of claim 7 including the two speed reducers, three motors, work machine, and interactions and layout set forth in the combination is not disclosed by the prior art. While the prior art may disclose one or more of the features no single reference discloses all of the features. In addition, it would not have been obvious to have modified the closest reference multiple times in multiple ways using more than one secondary reference since this would be an improper reconstruction and hindsight reasoning. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,497,796 that discloses “he drive motor 14 and the steer motor 16 are positioned to allow accessible space on the left sides thereof” (see column 6, lines 33-35). US 7,326,141 discloses two sets of motors each of which are on one lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent in a front-back direction. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM. 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. /STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590612
MULTI-PISTON DISENGAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR A BRAKE DEVICE OF A VEHICLE, BRAKE DEVICE FOR A VEHICLE HAVING A MULTI-PISTON DISENGAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND TRANSMISSION ARRANGEMENT FOR A VEHICLE HAVING THE BRAKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577989
CLUTCH CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577990
ELECTROMAGNETICALLY SHIFTABLE POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT CLUTCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558956
VEHICLE DIFFERENTIAL DISCONNECT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560219
DRIVE UNIT AND TRANSMISSION DEVICE
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
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+14.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 824 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