Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/683,387

FAILURE DETERMINATION DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND FAILURE DETERMINATION METHOD

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 01, 2022
Examiner
MCCULLERS, AARON KYLE
Art Unit
3663
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
32 granted / 72 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
102
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 72 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed November 21st, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are currently pending. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4 recite the limitation of wherein, in a case where the inverter is controlled by pulse width modulation control, the [processor/computer] avoids calculating the expectation value of the current supplied to the rotating electrical machine and generating the current expectation value data indicating the expectation value which are not described in the specification. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 112(a) for depending upon claim 1 which was rejected under 112(a). 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. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 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 1 and 4 are rejected under 112(b) due to the recited limitation of wherein, in a case where the inverter is controlled by pulse width modulation control, the [processor/computer] avoids calculating the expectation value of the current supplied to the rotating electrical machine and generating the current expectation value data indicating the expectation value as it is unclear if the processor/computer avoids generating the current expectation value data during pulse width modulation control or if the processor/computer generates the current expectation value data during pulse width modulation control. For the sake of the prior art consideration below the examiner interprets that the processor/computer avoids generating the current expectation value data during pulse width modulation control. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1 and 4 recite the limitation of wherein, in a case where the inverter is controlled by pulse width modulation control, the [processor/computer] avoids calculating the expectation value of the current supplied to the rotating electrical machine and generating the current expectation value data indicating the expectation value which is deemed novel and unobvious over the prior art of record as the closest prior art of record, Omata et al. (US Pub. No. 20150123581 A1), herein after Omata, teaches calculating and generating the expectation value of the current supplied to the rotating electrical machine during pulse width modulation control. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed November 21st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 21st, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 112(a) and 112(b). Applicant contends (see page 6 lines 17-19, filed November 21st, 2025) that support for the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 4 of wherein, in a case where the inverter is controlled by pulse width modulation control, the [processor/computer] avoids calculating the expectation value of the current supplied to the rotating electrical machine and generating the current expectation value data indicating the expectation value is found in paragraph 0052 of the specification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that paragraph 0052 of the specification makes no mention of the claimed feature; in fact, paragraph 0052 lacks any recitation of calculating/generating an expectation value of the current and the paragraph lacks any recitation to pulse width modulation control. The examiner further notes that the phrase “avoids” is not recited in applicant’s specification and the examiner could not find any paragraph where the phrases “pulse width modulation” and “expectation value” were recited together. 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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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. /A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2022
Application Filed
May 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 22, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 03, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 05, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 14, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576724
ELECTRIC POWER EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12517508
INFORMATION TERMINAL, CONTROL SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12503252
METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS MISSION PLANNING OF CARBON SATELLITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12497077
INTERPRETABLE KALMAN FILTER COMPRISING NEURAL NETWORK COMPONENT(S) FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12454444
WORK MACHINE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING WORK MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+32.8%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 72 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