Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/423,374

Dummy Apparatus with Movable Radar Reflecting Elements for Testing Driver Assistance Systems

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jul 15, 2021
Examiner
BARKER, MATTHEW M
Art Unit
3646
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
4Activesystems GmbH
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
559 granted / 772 resolved
+20.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
798
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§103
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 772 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s remarks filed 1/30/2026 concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are persuasive, as the issues are addressed by amendment. Additional issues are identified in rejoined claims 37, 38, and 43, and a new issue is raised by amendment in claim 40. Election/Restrictions Claim 30 is allowable. Claims 37-38 and 43-45, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species A and B, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 06/15/2023, is hereby withdrawn and claims 37-38 and 43-45 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. 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 37, 38, 40, and 43 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. Claim 37 recites the limitation "the reflecting and/or emitting element" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, “at least one reflecting and/or emitting element” is introduced and it is unclear if “the reflecting and/or emitting element” refers to this group or only one such element. Claim 38 recites the limitation "the reflecting and/or emitting element" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, “at least one reflecting and/or emitting element” is introduced and it is unclear if “the reflecting and/or emitting element” refers to this group or only one such element. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the at least one reflecting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, only a “reflecting and/or emitting element” is established. If it is the intent to require this element be a reflecting element, language such as: --wherein the reflecting and/or emitting element comprises a metallic reflecting element-- is suggested for claim 40. Claim 43 recites the limitation "the diameter ds" and “the diameter dr” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 43 recites the limitation "the same velocity of the object to be simulated" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous velocity of the object to be simulated established. In claim 30, “a motion of the movable part of the object to be simulated” is established; it is not clear if the velocity referenced in claim 43 is the velocity of this “movable part” motion or rather a different velocity of the object to be simulated. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 30, 32-36, 39, 41-42, 44-49 are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time. 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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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. /MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Oct 30, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2023
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Feb 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Jun 19, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Jan 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
May 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 26, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Dec 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578431
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING TARGET INFORMATION FOR A MULTI-RADAR TARGET SIMULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571910
RADAR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566261
DETECTING DEVICE AND DETECTION POSITION CALCULATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546860
Magnitude calibration of radar sensor based on radar map of known objects
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12529781
Systems and Methods for Noninvasive Detection of Impermissible Objects Using Decoupled Analog and Digital Components
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+14.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 772 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