Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/370,618

ON-VEHICLE SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 20, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, JELANI A
Art Unit
3662
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
196 granted / 279 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
288
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 279 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTIONS This Office Action is in response to the application 18/370,618, filed on 09/20/2023. Foreign Priority: 11/04/2022 Claims 1-20 have been examined are presently pending. Definition of terms that may be used for citation purpose: page = pg., paragraph = p., column = col., line = ln., for example page 5 = pg.5 Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 08/28/2025 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. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456. Regarding Claim 1: (Currently Amended) An on-vehicle system comprising: a central processing unit; (see at least Fig.7 and p.32, a conventional microcomputer including: microprocessor unit) an in-vehicle sensor that detects whether there is a priority target among occupants in a vehicle (see at least p.16, a camera, a microphone, and other sensors and actuators for sensing and adjusting conditions within the passenger cabin. The vehicle's systems may recognize a state of a child or emotions of a child for the purpose of modifying conditions within the passenger cabin to change the state of the child or the emotions of the child); and a memory that stores a learned model for feeling estimation (see at least p.54, portions of method 1000 may be implemented as executable controller instructions stored in non-transitory memory), wherein the central processing unit: determines whether there is the priority target among occupants in the vehicle based on a detection result of the in-vehicle sensor; (see at least p.16, a camera, a microphone, and other sensors and actuators for sensing and adjusting conditions within the passenger cabin. The vehicle's systems may recognize a state of a child or emotions of a child for the purpose of modifying conditions within the passenger cabin) acquires information on the priority target when determining that there is the priority target; (see at least p.24, difference in facial expression may be observed via camera 404 and a controller that is executing facial recognition software.) estimates a feeling of the priority target based on the information that has been acquired by using the learned model (see at least p.83, method includes where monitoring the facial expressions includes estimating an amount of eye lid droop. The method includes where monitoring the facial expressions includes determining that the vehicle occupant is yawning); and executes vehicle control in accordance with a result of estimating the feeling of the priority target, including reducing a suspension of the vehicle (see at least p.16, suspension system may be adjusted to smooth and soften the ride of the vehicle so that a child may fall asleep easier.) in response to determining that the priority target is detected as a weak person in the vehicle. (see at least p.84, monitoring facial expressions of a vehicle occupant via a camera; and adjusting a suspension setting of a vehicle in response to the monitored facial expressions via a controller. The method includes where adjusting the suspension setting includes adjusting a suspension setting to reduce damping of a suspension of a vehicle.). Although Dadam does disclose programs as a learning process, Dadam doesn’t explicitly disclose using a learned model for the estimating. However, TANAKA in the same field of endeavor discloses an adjustment device that more explicitly uses a learning model for estimating. (see at least, p.207, The machine learning model is a machine learning model that uses the estimation result of the state of the occupant as an input and outputs information (hereinafter, referred to as “checking necessity information”) indicating whether or not it is necessary to check the state of the occupant.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the learning model as explicitly disclosed by TANKA to improve the accuracy of the estimation. (see p.247) Regarding Claim 2. (Original) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. Dadam discloses further, wherein the priority target is at least any one of an elderly person, a child, a disabled person, and a person requiring care. (see at least p.16) Regarding Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. Dadam discloses, further comprising: an imaging device a camera disposed at a position where a plurality of occupants are allowed to be imaged in the vehicle (see at least p.16, passenger cabin may include an infotainment system, a camera, a microphone, and other sensors and actuators for sensing and adjusting conditions within the passenger cabin), so as to derive a result of estimating feeling of a person based on image data having expression of the person (see at least p.24, it may be observed that the facial expression of vehicle occupant 402 is different between FIG. 5 and FIG. 6. The difference in facial expression may be observed via camera), the information on the priority target includes image data having expression of the priority target obtained from the camera imaging device (see at least p.16, vehicle's systems may recognize a state of a child or emotions of a child for the purpose of modifying conditions within the passenger cabin to change the state of the child or the emotions of the child.). TANKA discloses wherein the learned model is generated by machine learning and estimating feeling of the priority target using the learned model includes: giving the image data having expression of the priority target obtained by the camera imaging device to the learned model;(see at least p.46, occupant state estimating device may estimate the state of the occupant by combining a plurality of types of occupant-related information such as biological information and an in-vehicle captured image.) and obtaining a result of estimating the feeling of the priority target from the learned model by executing arithmetic processing of the learned model. (see at least p.48, , the estimation result of the occupant is information indicating whether the occupant is in a normal state or an abnormal state) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the learning model as explicitly disclosed by TANKA to improve the accuracy of the estimation. (see p.247) Regarding Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 3. Dadam discloses further, wherein the in-vehicle sensor includes the camera imaging device,(see at least p.16, a camera, a microphone, and other sensors and actuators for sensing and adjusting conditions within the passenger cabin. The vehicle's systems may recognize a state of a child or emotions of a child) and determining whether there is the priority target among occupants in the vehicle includes determining whether there is the priority target among the occupants in the vehicle based on image data obtained by the camera imaging device. (see at least p.16, if the child is not present in the vehicle, the ride of the vehicle may be stiffened such that the vehicle sways less while the vehicle is turning.) *Examiner interprets the camera used to determine “if” the child is present or not. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456; and in further view of Jeong KR102200807. Regarding Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein executing the vehicle control further includes executing vehicle control of limiting a range of acceleration in a case where a result of estimating feeling of the priority target indicates that the priority target expresses unpleasant feeling. However, Jeong discloses a speed control apparatus for autonomous vehicles bases on occupant emotional recognition, wherein executing the vehicle control further includes executing vehicle control of limiting a range of acceleration in a case where a result of estimating feeling of the priority target indicates that the priority target expresses unpleasant feeling. (see p.39-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the speed control as taught by Jeong, to further provide comfort. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456; and in further view of TOMOZAWA et al. CN105416394A. Regarding Claim 6. (New) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. Dadam doesn’t explicitly disclsoe, wherein executing the vehicle control further includes setting a steering angle and a lateral G to or less than a predetermined threshold value. However TOMOZAWA, wherein executing the vehicle control further includes setting a steering angle (see at least pg.2, in the control device of the vehicle of the second way, e.g. so as to make variation of the rudder angle of the vehicle steering angle information is included in the first threshold setting for the vehicle guide path to the target position) and a lateral G to or less than a predetermined threshold value. (see at least pg.7, will make the passenger feel uncomfortable. migration (curve) 703, representing as the passenger feels uncomfortable determined reference lateral G amount Gt (hereinafter, referred to as threshold Gt) migration.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the vehicle control device as taught by TOMOZAWA with applies a steering angle and lateral G threshold, because it would further add comfort to the passenger of the vehicle. (see at least pg.2) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456; and in further view of ZHANG et al. CN112124242A. Regarding Claim 7. (New) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 3. Dadam doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the central processing unit specifies and marks a boarding position of the weak person in the vehicle based on a detection result from the camera. ZHANG discloses a children riding safety control device wherein the central processing unit specifies and marks a boarding position of the weak person in the vehicle (see at least pg.5, specifically, obtaining the seating position information of the child and representing whether the child using the seat using information of the safety seat can be the image of the passenger of the vehicle through the camera; and obtaining the riding position information of the child and the seat use information under the condition that the image identifies the boarding passenger is child) based on a detection result from the camera. (see at least pg.5, image of the passenger of the vehicle through the camera) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the child riding safety device as taught by ZHANG to improve a safety reaction time. (see at least pg.5) Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456; and in further view of ZHANG et al. CN 114013392A. Regarding Claim 8. (New) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. Dadam doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the central processing unit determines a priority order in accordance with a seat position. However, ZHANG discloses a rest space control device wherein the central processing unit determines a priority order in accordance with a seat position. (see at least pg.8, applying the technical solution of the fourth embodiment of the present invention, when there are many people in the vehicle, the environment parameter setting will be executed according to the set priority order, preferably executing the setting of the child or the old (e.g.,), otherwise, executing the setting of the master driver, at the same time, the seat information is determined according to the preset seat information of each user, so as to greatly improve the whole comfort of the plurality of users in the vehicle.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the priority order of seat positions as taught by ZHANG to further improve comfort. (see at least Abstract) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al. US2021/0114603; in view of TANKA US 2023/0404456; and in further view of CHEN et al. CN213228534. Regarding Claim 9. (New) The combination of Dadam and TANKA discloses all the limitations of the on-vehicle system according to claim 1. Dadam discloses further wherein the central processing unit determines whether the priority target is the weak person based on a behavior of the priority target (see at least p.20, sound levels that are believed to improve the disposition of vehicle occupant 402 when camera and/or microphone indicate that vehicle occupant is in an undesirable emotional state (e.g., crying or angry).) *Examiner interprets Dadam’s system for adjusting the vehicle settings based on the emotion and behavior of a target passenger. However, Dadam doesn’t explicitly disclose at a time of entry into the vehicle. However, CHEN discloses a vehicle control system for triggering the setting of information and vehicle control wherein including a time of entry into the vehicle. (see at least pg.9, timing trigger circuit 260 receives the timing signal and generates a first display trigger signal according to the timing signal, namely the passenger boarding signal) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system for adjusting vehicle operations based on a predicted state of a vehicle occupant as taught by Dadam with the triggering of the setting signal when boarding as taught by CHEN to improve the feeling of the passenger. (see at least Abstract) 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 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 JELANI A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30AM-4:30PM EST. 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, Jelani A Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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. JELANI A. SMITH Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3662 /JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600347
VEHICLE ACCESSIBILITY PARKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589844
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR WATERCRAFT, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING WATERCRAFT, AND WATERCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589419
MOBILE OBJECT AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING FOREIGN MATTER FROM ADHERING TO MOBILE OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12545094
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MODIFYING VERTICAL POSITIONS OF POWERTRAINS OR COMPONENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12515698
REFINEMENT TRAINING FOR MACHINE-LEARNED VEHICLE CONTROL MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
70%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 279 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