Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/427,686

Methods and Systems for Vehicle Display Data Integration with Mobile Device Data

Final Rejection §101§DP
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
BRUSHABER, FREDERICK M
Art Unit
3665
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Emerging Automotive LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
526 granted / 586 resolved
+37.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 586 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the double patenting. It appears the terminal disclaimer was intended to be filed but was not. Examiner tried to contact Albert Penilla to remedy but his contact number and the number to his law firm were inoperable. Please file the terminal disclaimer as intended. The remaining rejections have been overcome. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10286798. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of the existing claim language broadening in some aspects and narrowing in others. Conforms with 35 USC § 101 The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are pending and are indicated as having allowable subject matter. If applicable, any remaining non-art rejections or formalities must be overcome prior to a notice of allowance. 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 an examiner’s statement of indicating allowable subject matter: See Office Action 10/9/2025 for substantive reasoning on allowable subject matter. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20120095643 A1 The modification method involves receiving vehicle-based data at a mobile device via communications links between the mobile device and an on-board vehicle analysis system, and determining an environmental context based at least on the vehicle-based data. The user interface format is modified based on the determined environmental context. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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. /FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Jan 09, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603090
METHODS AND VEHICLES FOR CAPTURING EMOTION OF A HUMAN DRIVER AND CUSTOMIZING VEHICLE RESPONSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588592
TRAINING METHOD FOR AN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLE AUTOMATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583485
DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE, DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING DRIVING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570315
MOBILE OBJECT CONTROL DEVICE, MOBILE OBJECT CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560436
NAVIGATION VIDEO GENERATION AND ACQUISITION METHODS AND APPARATUSES, SERVER, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 586 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