Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/866,523

TRANSMISSION OIL COOLER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Examiner
RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mahle International GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
740 granted / 948 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
975
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 948 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 § 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., US PGPub 2017/0051821 in view of Gaiser et al., WO 2021/185489. PNG media_image1.png 278 534 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 1, 6, and 16-19 Long et al. discloses a transmission oil cooler (16) comprising: a housing (see fig 3) including an upper section (14) of the housing (as described above) and a lower section (22) of the housing (as described above), in or on which a heat transmitter (24) is arranged, wherein the lower section (22) of the housing (as described above) is simultaneously configured as a transmission housing cover (when 22 is attached to transmission as shown in fig 1) for a transmission housing (see enclosure of 14 in fig 1) that can be connected (via 18) thereto. Long et al. does not specify that the housing comprising at least one receptacle for a valve, a pump or a filter, wherein the upper section and the lower section together enclose the at least one receptacle. PNG media_image2.png 452 466 media_image2.png Greyscale Gaiser et al. teaches a similar transmission lubrication structure (see fig 1-2) wherein the housing (2,20) comprising at least one receptacle (see fig 2) for a valve (15), a pump (5) or a filter (14), wherein the upper section (20) and the lower section (2) together enclose the at least one receptacle (as described above). (claims 1, 16, and 19) further comprising at least one further receptacle (containing 5) arranged on the lower section of the housing (2,20), the at least one further receptacle being configured as a screw-in (see screws connected to 5) opening (claims 6 and 17-18) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the enclosed valve, pump or filter described by Gaiser et al. in the system disclosed by Long et al. in order to create a more compact and energy efficient lubricant processing system. Regarding claims 8, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to Claim 1 further comprising the lower section (22) of the housing (as described above) comprises a circumferential flange (20) disposed on a side of the lower section (22) opposite to the upper section (14) of the housing (as described above) which is connected to the transmission (via 18) Regarding claims 2, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to Claim 1, wherein the lower section (22) of the housing (as described above) comprises a circumferential flange (20), the circumferential flange (20) disposed on a side (top side) of the lower section (22) opposite to the upper section (14) of the housing (as described above) Regarding claims 3 and 10, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to claims 1 and 8, further comprising at least one interface (36,38) is arranged on the lower section (22) of the housing (as described above). Regarding claims 4 and 11-12, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to Claims 3 and 9, wherein the at least one interface (36,38) is configured as a holder (for 42 and 44) a hydraulic connection (see coolant flow E and F in fig 2). Regarding claims 5 and 13-15, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to claims 1 and 8 but does not specify the material of the lower section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a plastic or aluminum pan, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a plastic or aluminum pan in order to reduce the weight and costs associated with the pan, enhance the pan durability. Regarding claims 7 and 20, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission oil cooler (16) according to claims 1 and 8, wherein the lower section (22) of the housing consists of one piece (see fig 2). Regarding claim 9, Long et al. in view of Gaiser et al. discloses the transmission according to Claim 8, wherein the transmission housing (14) comprises a further circumferential flange (18) that is screwed (“bolting flange”) to the circumferential flange (20) of the lower section (22) of the housing (as described above). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday. 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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. MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3654 /MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600600
A SEAL ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELEVATOR AND A METHOD TO OPERATE THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600224
OIL SUPPLY DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE POWERTRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595783
CONTROL DEVICE FOR GEARBOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589517
LUBRICATION MONITORING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578013
DRIVE MODULE ASSEMBLY AND DRIVE MODULE SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 948 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