Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 19/474,077

SHIFT DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 09, 2025
Priority
Apr 21, 2023 — JP 2023-070475 +1 more
Examiner
WEBER, GREGORY ROBERT
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
290 granted / 378 resolved
+24.7% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
396
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 378 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,626,981) in view of Nakanishi (US 10,508,732). Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a shift device (see Fig. 1) comprising: A shift body (3) having an operation rod (see Fig. 1) that can rotate with respect to a rotation axis (Ax). A sensor substrate (620) disposed at one side, in a rotating direction of the operation rod, with respect to the rotation axis (see Fig. 3), and having a sensor (620) that detects a rotational position of the operation rod. Yang does not disclose a sensor substrate for the sensor. However, Nakanishi discloses in a similar shift device (see Fig. 2) having a sensor substrate (38) having a sensor (see Col. 6 Lines 11-23, disclosing sensors disposed on the printed wiring board 38). 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 shift device disclosed in Yang with a sensor substrate for the sensor as taught in Nakanishi to provide for mounting of the sensor to a medium that can process the signal for use in the shift device. Regarding Claim 2, the Combination further suggests the shift device of Claim 1, wherein the sensor substrate is disposed further toward an inner side than an outer side portion of the shift body, in an axial direction of the rotation axis (see Yang Fig. 4, showing the sensor is located at this location, and accordingly the sensor substrate would likewise be located at the claimed location). Regarding Claim 3, the Combination further suggests the shift device of Claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the sensor substrate is disposed in a concave portion, which is recessed in an axial direction of the rotation axis, of the shift body (see Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 4, Yang further discloses the shift device of Claim 1, comprising a rotating body (610) connected to the shift body by a gear (110). Wherein the sensor is disposed at a position at which the sensor can detect a rotational position of the rotating body (see Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 5, Yang further discloses the shift device of Claim 1, wherein the sensor substrate is disposed so as to avoid a rotation range of the operation rod as seen from an axial direction of the rotation axis (see Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 6, the Combination further suggests the shift device of Claim 5, wherein: The sensor substrate is formed in a shape of a plate that extends in the rotating direction (see Nakanishi Fig. 2; Yang Fig. 4), with the axial direction of the rotation axis being a plate thickness direction of the sensor substrate as seen from the axial direction of the rotation axis (see Nakanishi Fig. 2), the sensor substrate is disposed so as to avoid the rotation range of the operation rod due to at least one notch being formed in a portion, which is at a rotation axis side, of the sensor substrate (see Nakanishi Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 7, the Combination further suggests the shift device of Claim 5, wherein: The sensor substrate is formed in a shape of a plate that extends in the rotating direction, with the axial direction of the rotation axis being a plate thickness direction of the sensor substrate (see Nakanishi Fig. 2). As seen from the axial direction of the rotation axis, the sensor substrate is disposed so as to avoid the rotation range of the operation rod due to a portion, which is at a rotation axis side, of the sensor substrate being formed in a tapered shape that is inclined with respect to the rotation axis (see Nakanishi Fig. 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F. 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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (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 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. /GREGORY ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734961
SHIFT DEVICE
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12709000
MAGNETIC TORSION SPRING FOR A MAGNETICALLY ACTUATED MECHANISM AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SPRING
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12709381
ROTARY ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12708999
ROBOT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ROBOT
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12703114
Motion System for a Robot and Robot
2y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 3m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 378 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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