Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/890,122

GEAR DEVICE

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Examiner
TRUONG, MINH D
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Nabtesco Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 716 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
752
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 716 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 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 6-8 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. Claims 6-8 are directed to an apparatus of a gear device. These claims have recitation of a process of the control unit, it is not clear what structure of the gear device is being claimed. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US 2021/0181177 A1) in view of Gaully et al. (US Pub 2022/0349466 A1). Sakurai discloses a gear device (fig. 1) comprising: Re claim 1, a case (2a); a transmission mechanism (par [0073]) housed inside the case along with a lubricant (par [0074]), the transmission mechanism including a plurality of gears configured to rotate when acted upon by power (power from 4) from outside the case; a measurement chamber (S) in communication with interior and exterior spaces of the case, the measurement chamber being shut out from ambient air outside the case (fig. 1 shows S is closed off and does not interact with ambient air outside the case); a housing (3) separate from the case, the housing defining the measurement chamber in communication with the interior space of the case (fig. 1 shows S is defined by 3 and 2a); Sakurai does not disclose: Re claim 1, a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure inside the measurement chamber; and a control unit configured to monitor a condition of the lubricant inside the case based on a detected result by the pressure sensor; and a temperature sensor disposed in the measurement chamber that is defined by a portion of the case and the housing, the temperature sensor being configured to detect temperature of a site exposed to the measurement chamber and is a portion of the transmission mechanism being in contact with the lubricant, wherein the control unit detects leakage of the lubricant from the interior space of the case based on a detected result by the temperature sensor and a detected result by the pressure sensor However, Gaully teaches a transmission (fig. 1): Re claim 1, a pressure sensor (62) configured to detect pressure inside the measurement chamber; and a control unit (6) configured to monitor a condition of the lubricant inside the case based on a detected result by the pressure sensor (par [0058]); and a temperature sensor (61) disposed in the measurement chamber that is defined by a portion of the case and the housing (Sakurai fig. 1 shows S is defined by 3 and 2a), the temperature sensor being configured to detect temperature of a site exposed to the measurement chamber (site of 3a) and is a portion of the transmission mechanism being in contact with the lubricant (3a contains gear for receiving lubricant; Sakurai chamber S is space containing lubricant engaging with the transmission mechanism), wherein the control unit detects leakage of the lubricant from the interior space of the case based on a detected result by the temperature sensor and a detected result by the pressure sensor (par [0058]). It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the pressure sensor and control unit, as taught by Gaully, to detect pressure drop and determine abnormal operating condition. Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US 2021/0181177 A1) in view of Gaully et al. (US Pub 2022/0349466 A1) and Dreier et al. (US 2008/0300746 A1). Sakurai as modified discloses the gear device (as cited above). Sakurai as modified does not disclose: Re claim 5, wherein the control unit has a table associating values of a temperature rise from a reference temperature at the site exposed to the measurement chamber with the pressure inside the measurement chamber, wherein the control unit compares the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor against the table to estimate a ratio of the lubricant to a total volume that is a sum of a volume of the interior space of the case and a volume of the measurement chamber, and determines whether a filling amount of the lubricant is at a proper level based on an estimated result. Re claim 6, wherein the control unit has the table associating the values of the temperature rise with the pressure, for each of a plurality of ratios of the lubricant to the total volume, and wherein the control unit estimates the ratio of the lubricant to the total volume by referring to the table based on a combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor, and determines whether the filling amount of the lubricant is at the proper level based on whether the estimated ratio of the lubricant falls within a range corresponding to predetermined ratios among the plurality of ratios. Re claim 7, wherein the control unit has the table associating the values of the temperature rise with the pressure, for each of a plurality of ratios of the lubricant to the total volume, and a proper range, which includes combinations of the values of the temperature rise and the pressure based on the table, corresponding to specified ratios of the lubricant, and wherein the control unit determines whether the filling amount of the lubricant is at the proper level, based on whether a combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor falls within the proper range. Re claim 8, wherein the control unit estimates the condition of the lubricant by comparing the combinations of the values of the temperature rise and the pressure of the proper range, and the combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor, in a case where the combination does not fall within the proper range. However, Dreier teaches a lubrication system (fig. 1): Re claim 5, wherein the control unit (120) has a table (par [0031]: “empirical or stored data”) associating values of a temperature rise from a reference temperature at the site exposed to the measurement chamber with the pressure inside the measurement chamber, wherein the control unit compares the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor against the table to estimate a ratio of the lubricant to a total volume that is a sum of a volume of the interior space of the case and a volume of the measurement chamber, and determines whether a filling amount of the lubricant is at a proper level based on an estimated result (par [0031] describes a processor using “equations including variables for pressure, volume, and temperature” to analyze and calculate the oil level or volume; this information would be used to compare with stored data to determine the volume ratio). Re claim 6, wherein the control unit has the table associating the values of the temperature rise with the pressure, for each of a plurality of ratios of the lubricant to the total volume, and wherein the control unit estimates the ratio of the lubricant to the total volume by referring to the table based on a combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor, and determines whether the filling amount of the lubricant is at the proper level based on whether the estimated ratio of the lubricant falls within a range corresponding to predetermined ratios among the plurality of ratios (par [0031] and [0051] describe the ability for the control unit to estimate (“interpolate” and “extrapolate”) the volume based on the detected pressure and temperature and determine if the threshold is met in order to “initiate damage prevention processes”). Re claim 7, wherein the control unit has the table associating the values of the temperature rise with the pressure, for each of a plurality of ratios of the lubricant to the total volume, and a proper range, which includes combinations of the values of the temperature rise and the pressure based on the table, corresponding to specified ratios of the lubricant (par [0031]: “Empirical or stored data linking different oil levels or oil volumes with respective oil temperatures may be provided. Also, equations including variables for pressure, volume, and temperature may be used”), and wherein the control unit determines whether the filling amount of the lubricant is at the proper level, based on whether a combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor falls within the proper range ((par [0031] and [0051] describe the ability for the control unit to estimate (“interpolate” and “extrapolate”) the volume based on the detected pressure and temperature and determine if the threshold is met in order to “initiate damage prevention processes”). Re claim 8, wherein the control unit estimates the condition of the lubricant by comparing the combinations of the values of the temperature rise and the pressure of the proper range, and the combination of the detected result by the temperature sensor and the detected result by the pressure sensor, in a case where the combination does not fall within the proper range (par [0031]). It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare measured data with stored data, as taught by Dreier, to determine if the system is operating within the predetermined threshold. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 9-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the prior arts fail to disclose the claimed temperature sensor and control unit. Gaully only teaches the at least one fire detector and is silent on “the temperature sensor being configured to detect temperature of a site that is exposed to the measurement chamber and is a portion of the transmission mechanism being in contact with the lubricant.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gaully shows a temperature sensor at 61. The sensor 61 uses expanding gas to determine the magnitude of the temperature at the measurement chamber 3a. Gaully fig. 1 shows the sensor 61 detecting temperature of chamber 3a, where lubricant is injected to cool various components therein. This chamber 3a is equivalent to the chamber S disclosed by Sakurai. Gaully also teaches a control unit 6 for receiving signals from the temperature and pressure sensors to process the data. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 pm. 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. /Minh Truong/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601375
BEARING ASSEMBLY WITH INTERNAL PRIME-RETAINING PRESSURIZED LUBRICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600185
Multi-Layered Grease Pod for Ball and Fifth Wheel Hitches
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595756
REVERSIBLE OIL PAN FOR AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590429
Telescopic Pooper Scooper
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578056
FAN FOR LUBRICATION AND COOLING OF ECCENTRIC BEARINGS IN A SURFACE COMPACTOR MACHINE
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
67%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 716 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