Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/524,117

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO HEARING-IMPAIRED PEDESTRIANS

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Examiner
LAU, HOI CHING
Art Unit
2689
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
791 granted / 1065 resolved
+12.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1088
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1065 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 have been examined. Double Patenting The terminal disclaimer filed on November 20, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,475,781 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claims 1, 14 and 18, the claims recite steps and similar language including: inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on data collected by a user device of the pedestrian; administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment of the pedestrian responsive to the inference; and producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment of the pedestrian. The limitation of inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.’ For example, “inferring” encompasses a person recognizing, estimating, or judging that a pedestrian may be experiencing hearing impairment based on observable behavior or environmental factors. Similarly, the limitation of administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “administering a hearing test” encompasses a person presenting tones or other auditory stimuli and receiving indications of perception or response to assess hearing ability. Similarly, the limitation of producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure” encompasses a person providing guidance, warnings, or notifications to the pedestrian or surrounding drivers or infrastructure. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements including a processor and memory executing machine-readable instructions. However, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generic computer components performing conventional functions. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they impose no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, recitation of a generic processor executing generic instructions to perform the inferring, testing, and countermeasure steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. As per claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20, they are rejected based on the dependency of claims 1, 14 and 18, respectively. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art made of record fails to teach, As per claim 1, 14 and 18, inferring that a pedestrian is experiencing hearing impairment based on data collected by a user device of the pedestrian; administering a hearing test to verify the hearing impairment of the pedestrian responsive to the inference of impairment; and producing a pedestrian assistance countermeasure responsive to verified hearing impairment of the pedestrian as determined from the hearing test. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Oct 21, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597344
EMERGENCY VEHICLE DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571932
WINDOW LOCKING DEVICE AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562266
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND CATEGORIZING AUDIBLE ALARMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563371
ITEM MANAGING APPARATUS, ITEM MANAGING SYSTEM, AND ITEM MANAGING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555474
Informing a Driver of a Motor Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+16.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1065 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