Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/145,446

Vehicle Control Apparatus, Vehicle Integrated/Integration Unit, and Vehicle

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Examiner
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
Art Unit
3664
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shenzhen Yinwang Intelligent Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
494 granted / 686 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
722
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 686 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/145,446 filed on December 26, 2025. The amendment contains amended claims: 1, 11, 13. Claims 1, 11 and 13 are amended. Claims 2, 4-16, 18-22 was previously. Claims 1, 3-16 and 18-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 3 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-, 2, 4-16, 18-22 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 2, 6, 9-10, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekkas (2019/0281052) in view of Takahashi (US 10805813 B2) Regarding claim 1, Lekkas discloses a vehicle control apparatus, comprising: a communications bus (¶0024); a plurality of first circuit boards each comprising an internal network interface, wherein the internal network interface is configured to communicatively couple the vehicle control apparatus to an in-vehicle network of a vehicle (FIG. 1, ECU1..ECUN, Vehicle Network 177, 155 TCU); and a second circuit board coupled to the plurality of first circuit boards via the communications bus, wherein the second circuit board comprises an external network interface (FIG. 1, 110, vehicle network 170), configured to communicatively couple the vehicle control apparatus to a vehicle external network (FIG. 1, 110, vehicle network 175), wherein the second circuit board is configured to only communicate with the in-vehicle network through the plurality of first circuit boards (FIG. 1, Module 110, connected to ECU1…ECUN.. through access port and vehicle network 170). Lekkas discloses Takahashi teaches wherein the plurality of first circuit boards is configured to only communicate with the vehicle external network through the second circuit board (fig. 1, circuit 155 connected to circuit 190 through remote network 180). However, should it be found that Lekkas does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of first circuit boards is configured to only communicate with the vehicle external network through the second circuit board, Takahashi teaches wherein the plurality of first circuit boards is configured to only communicate with the vehicle external network through the second circuit board (FIG. 1 shows circuits 102-107 communicate to external network 111 through control unit 101. Furthermore, circuits 102-107 communicate to external network 150 through 111.). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in Lekkas with the first circuit and second circuit in Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted ensuring that no data are lost by the presence of other bus participants (i.e., by transmission to and from other endpoints). Regarding claim 4, Lekkas discloses further comprising a plurality of second circuit boards, and, wherein the plurality of second circuit boards comprises the second circuit board, and wherein each of the plurality of second circuit boards is communicatively coupled to the first circuit board (FIG. 1 shows ECU1, ECU2,.. ECU n coupled and ¶0037 “one or more ECUs (e.g., one or more of ECU nodes 140, 145, and 150) communicatively coupled to automotive controller network 170.”). Regarding claim 5, Lekkas discloses a plurality of first circuit boards comprising the first circuit board; and a plurality of second circuit boards, and comprising the second circuit board, wherein each of the plurality of first circuit boards is communicatively coupled to a part or all of the plurality of second circuit boards (FIG. 1 shows ECU1, ECU2,.. ECU n coupled and ¶0037 “one or more ECUs (e.g., one or more of ECU nodes 140, 145, and 150) communicatively coupled to automotive controller network 170.”). Regarding claim 7, Lekkas discloses wherein the internal network interface comprises an input/output (I/O) interface configured to communicate with a vehicle component in the vehicle using the in-vehicle network (¶0027, “TCU 155 may include a Bluetooth radio configured to transmit authorized operations and/or information received from external devices over vehicle network 177”). Regarding claim 8, Lekkas discloses wherein the internal network interface comprises one or more of the following input/output interfaces: a controller area network Controller Area Network(CAN) input interface; a local interconnect network (LIN) input interface; an analog input interface; a digital input interface[[,]];a single edge nibble transmission (SENT) input interface[[,]];a Hall signal input interface[[,]];a low edge output interface[[,]];a high edge output interface[[,]];an H-bridge output interface[[,]];a brushless direct current motor (BLDCM) output interface[[,]];a current valve control interface; an Ethernet internal network interface, and; or Peripheral Component Interconnect Express(PCIe) interface (¶0024, “CAN, LIN, Ethernet …”). Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1. Regarding claim 12, Lekkas dislcoses wherein the VIU is configured to implement, using the vehicle control apparatus, some or all electronic control functions of a plurality of vehicle components in the vehicle (FIG. 1). Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 3. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 4. Claims 2, 6, 9-10, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekkas (2019/0281052), Takahashi (US 10805813 B2) and further in view of Bauer (20200125858). Regarding claim 2, Lekkas discloses one micro processing unit (MPU) is further disposed on the second circuit board, and configured to process to- be-processed data (¶0033, “a pass-through adapter and may include processor 112, .. processor 112 may be configured to perform functions ..monitor data frame transmissions via automotive controller network 170, monitor physical coupling status with access port ”); and Lekkas does not explicitly disclose, but Bauer teaches a micro control unit (MCU) is further disposed on the second circuit board and configured to control a vehicle component in the vehicle (claim 9). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with the circuit board controlling the vehicle component taught in Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in securing an automotive controller network using a security module physically and communicatively coupled to an access port of a select vehicle's automotive controller network. Regarding claim 6, Bauer further teaches further comprising an interface disposed on the second circuit board and configured to transmit audio/video data (¶0138). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with the circuit board controlling the vehicle component taught in Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in securing an automotive controller network using a security module physically and communicatively coupled to an access port of a select vehicle's automotive controller network. Regarding claim 9, Bauer teaches an external power supply is disposed on the first circuit board, and configured to supply power to an electronic element in the vehicle other than electronic elements on the first circuit board and the second circuit board (¶0117). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with the circuit board controlling the vehicle component taught in Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in securing an automotive controller network using a security module physically and communicatively coupled to an access port of a select vehicle's automotive controller network. Regarding claim 10, Bauer teaches wherein the vehicle control apparatus comprising a power supply circuit board, wherein the power supply circuit board comprises an external power supply configured to supply power to an electronic element in the vehicle other than electronic elements on the first circuit board and the second circuit board (¶0117). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with the circuit board controlling the vehicle component taught in Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in securing an automotive controller network using a security module physically and communicatively coupled to an access port of a select vehicle's automotive controller network. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 2. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 2. Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 2. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 2. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 2. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekkas (2019/0281052), Takahashi (US 10805813 B2) and further in view of Cai (11,418,935). Regarding claim 21, Lekkas does not explicitly disclose but Cai teaches comprising at least one vehicle domain controller (DC) disposed on the first circuit board; and at least one vehicle integrated unit (VIU) disposed on the second circuit board (abstract). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with DC and VIU taught in Cai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted implementing an automobile electronic control function, and an automobile, to reduce costs of automobile parts in the automobile. Regarding claim 22, Lekkas does not explicitly disclose but Cai teaches wherein the vehicle control apparatus further comprises: at least one vehicle domain controller (DC) disposed on the first circuit board; and at least one vehicle integrated unit (VIU) disposed on the second circuit board (abstract). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automotive controller network disclosed in Lekkas with DC and VIU taught in Cai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted implementing an automobile electronic control function, and an automobile, to reduce costs of automobile parts in the automobile. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 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 extension fee 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 REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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. /REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596365
ENHANCEMENTS TO BEYOND-VISUAL-LINE-OF-SIGHT (BVLOS) OPERATION OF REMOTE-CONTROLLED APPARATUSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589768
Path Determination for Autonomous Vehicle Parking
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586422
Systems and methods of configuring vehicle service tools associated with display device based on operating condition of vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583479
VEHICLE TRAJECTORY CONTROL FOR PRECISE ROUTE FOLLOWING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580608
MAGNETIC INDUCTION COMMUNICATION-BASED VEHICLE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 686 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