Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/589,021

METHOD FOR OBJECT MODEL MANAGEMENT OF AN OBJECT MODEL IN A VOLATILE WORKING MEMORY AND VEHICLE ASSISTANCE SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Examiner
DARE, RYAN A
Art Unit
2132
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Robert Bosch GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
421 granted / 558 resolved
+20.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
604
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 558 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Specification The objections to the specification are withdrawn due to the substitute specification submitted 11/26/2025 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.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 limitation "the object iteration" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the object iteration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the object iteration" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims mentioned in the header but not specifically addressed depend from the above claims and do not resolve the deficiencies of their parent claim, and are therefore also rejected. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-14 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to independent claim 11, no prior art of record teaches “(i) determining, based on sensor data, that the first object and the second object correspond to a same real object in the vehicle environment, and (ii) in response to the determination, performing an object merge for the first and second objects, wherein the object merge includes: (A) merging the first object and the second object into a merged object by: storing the merged object in a third memory array location indicated as free by the memory allocation vector; generating for the merged object a merged object identifier including the memory array index of the third memory array location and a third counter value; and setting in the memory allocation vector the bits corresponding to the first and second memory array locations to indicate deletion of the first and second objects, and the bit corresponding to the third memory array location to indicate storage of the merged object; or (B) merging the first object and the second object by: deleting the second object by setting in the memory allocation vector the bit corresponding to the second memory array location to indicate that the location is free; and updating stored characteristics of the first object in the first memory array location to incorporate characteristics of the second object, thereby maintaining the first object as a surviving merged object; or (II) the method further includes: (i) marking the first object and the second object as alternative hypotheses for a same sensed real object by storing, in each of the first and second memory array locations, a reference to the object identifier of the other object; (ii) subsequent to the marking, determining, based on further sensor data, that the first object corresponds to the real object and that the second object does not; and (iii) in response to the determining, editing the set of stored objects by: maintaining the first object in the first memory array location; and deleting the second object by setting in the memory allocation vector the bit corresponding to the second memory array location to indicate that the second memory array location is free” in combination with the remaining claim limitations. Claims 12-14 depend from independent claim 11 and are allowable by virtue of their dependence on the allowed base claim. While Independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite, they distinguish over the prior art of record for reciting that when an object is inserted into the statically allocated memory array of the working memory, the object model is updated to include, for each inserted object, a respective identification of that object, wherein the identification is formed, at least in part, of (i) the memory array index of the memory location into which the object is inserted and (ii) a counter value that is incremented either (a) upon each instance of object storage into the respective memory array location or (b) upon each instance of object storage into the memory array. In addition, the claims require that the object occupancy state of the memory array location is changed as a result of the insertion, and that object model actions include at least an iteration carried out by using a memory allocation vector which indicates the respective object occupancy state of each of the memory array locations. Thus, the amended claims require a unique identifier for each stored object that is specifically formed from both the memory slot index and a counter value incremented on each instance of storage, which uniquely distinguishes objects even when the same slot is reused, which distinguishes over the prior art of record. 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.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 is made in view of 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite. The substitute specification resolves the numbering issues objected to in the prior office action, and is entered. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pronovost, US Patent 12,221,134 teaches merging images of the vehicle environment. Bacchus, US PGPub 2020/0167934 teaches vehicle object tracking. 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 RYAN DARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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. /RYAN DARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2132 /HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566574
MEMORY SYSTEM MANAGING CACHE IN HOST MEMORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12259812
CENTER ALLOCATION DATA STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 2025
Patent 12259823
Virtual Memory Management Method and Apparatus Supporting Physical Addresses Larger Than Virtual Addresses
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 2025
Patent 12248680
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS ON STORAGE DEVICES IN PLACE OF DRIVE-BASED MAINTENANCE ROUTINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Patent 12222814
VALUE-DRIVEN PRIORITIZATION OF BACKUPS THROUGH TIME-LIMITED AIRGAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 11, 2025
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
75%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+10.8%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 558 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