Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/107,315

VEHICLE BRAKING DEVICE AND FAILURE DETERMINATION METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 08, 2023
Examiner
KING, BRADLEY T
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 940 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-5 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. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to store a virtual threshold value curve that indicates a change in the wheel cylinder pressure when the failure has not occurred in the braking actuator”. The bottom part of figure 3 appears to show a virtual threshold value curve that indicates a change in the wheel cylinder pressure when the failure has not occurred in the braking actuator. Claim 1 has been amended to further recite “determining that the failure has not occurred in the braking actuator when the master cylinder pressure is less than the virtual threshold value and determining that the failure has occurred in the braking actuator when the master cylinder pressure is equal to or greater than the virtual threshold value.” The top part of figure 3 shows a different curve (determination threshold value curve), which indicates a failure when the master cylinder pressure equal to or greater than a determination threshold value. The original disclosure does not support the determination of “a failure has not occurred in the braking actuator when the master cylinder pressure is less than the virtual threshold value and determining that the failure has occurred in the braking actuator when the master cylinder pressure is equal to or greater than the virtual threshold value”. The disclosed “virtual” threshold values are wheel cylinder pressures, not master cylinder pressures. The recitations therefore constitute new matter. It is further noted that the original disclosure does not appear to support the storing of the virtual threshold value curve, nor any use of any value from the virtual curve. Claim 3 recites similar. 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 1-5 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 1 recites “the virtual threshold value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the virtual threshold value is intended to be any particular value from the virtual threshold value curve, or some other value. Claim 3 recites similar. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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 Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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. /BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 BTK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600332
Vehicle Braking System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600334
ELECTRONIC BRAKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600337
HYDRAULIC BRAKE APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601385
SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600338
AIR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REUSING EXHAUSTED AIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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
71%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+24.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 940 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