Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/625,403

CONTROLLER AND CONTROL METHOD

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
BAILEY, JOHN D
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Robert Bosch GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
292 granted / 375 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
396
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 375 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Interpretation Claim 11 uses the phrase “transmission shift position” is broadly interpreted to also include engagement/disengagement of a transmission clutch. Response to Arguments In re the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections were previously discussed in the 11/19/2025 interview along with proposed claim amendments, as stated in the interview summary dated 11/25/2025, and are now withdrawn. The applicant respectfully argues that Shono teaches that the vehicle is engaging in regenerative braking in the gliding state. However, Shono fails to teach in a situation where the vehicle is decelerating, automatically increasing deceleration of the vehicle in accordance with a deceleration depending upon a brake operation by a driver. The examiner respectfully, both agrees and disagrees The examiner agrees with the applicant in that Shono teaches that the vehicle is engaging in regenerative braking in the gliding state. Shono further teaches in fig. 10 and [0073] that if the P & G running mode has been established…determination in the step R3 may be made by determining whether the accelerator pedal operation amount Acc has been substantially zeroed, for instance. Alternately, the determination may be made by determining whether the output signal of the foot brake switch 88 indicative of the operated state Bon of the foot brake has been generated or not. Shono further teaches in [0075] that the threshold vehicle-to-vehicle distance map is updated by the learning compensation depending upon the different characteristics of the individual vehicle operators, so as to minimize the threshold vehicle-to-vehicle distance to the extent that can avoid a releasing operation of the accelerator pedal 78 or any other operation by the vehicle operator to decelerate the vehicle when the vehicle comes excessively close to the preceding vehicle during the accelerating of the vehicle in question in the P & G running mode. Shono also teaches in [0079] that the control initiating conditions for initiating the running of the vehicle in the P & G running mode further include the condition that the condition that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance Dv is equal to or larger than the threshold value SK. Accordingly, it is possible to prevent deterioration of the fuel economy due to an operation of the vehicle operator to accelerate the vehicle after the operation of the vehicle operator to decelerate the vehicle as a result of excessive approaching of the vehicle to the preceding vehicle during acceleration of the vehicle in the P & G running mode. In particular, the threshold vehicle-to-vehicle distance reference value HSK(V) on the basis of which the threshold value SK is determined is subjected to the learning compensation on the basis of the vehicle-to-vehicle distance Dv detected by the vehicle-to-vehicle distance sensor 92, when the vehicle operator has performed the operation to decelerate the vehicle in the P & G running mode, that is, when the an amount of releasing operation of the accelerator pedal 78 has become equal to or larger than the predetermined upper limit .beta.. The compensated threshold vehicle-to-vehicle distance reference value HSK(V) is reflected on the control initiating conditions for initiating the subsequent vehicle running in the P & G running mode. Thus, the threshold value SK of the vehicle-to-vehicle distance can be minimized to the extent that makes it possible to avoid the operation of the vehicle operator to decelerate the vehicle when the vehicle comes excessively close to the preceding vehicle in the alternately accelerating and decelerating mode in the P & G running mode, irrespective of a difference of the characteristics of the individual vehicle operators regarding the timing at which the vehicle operator performs the operation to decelerate the vehicle as a result of reduction of the vehicle-to-vehicle distance Dv. Accordingly, the vehicle can be run in the P & G running mode as long as the vehicle-to-vehicle distance is equal to or larger than the threshold value SK specific to the vehicle operator, which is as small as possible to the extent that makes it possible to avoid the operation to decelerate the vehicle operator when the vehicle comes excessively close to the preceding vehicle in the P & G running mode, so that the fuel economy can be effectively improved. Shono further teaches in [0061] that this initial value HSK0 is subjected to the learning compensation by the learning means 114, to obtain a compensated value as represented by HSK1 or HSK2, by way of example, depending upon a difference of the characteristics of the individual vehicle operators regarding the timings (vehicle-to-vehicle distance) at which they release the accelerator pedal and depress the brake pedal when the vehicle in question comes close to the preceding vehicle. Further, it is in this way that HSK1 or HSK2 are used to determine SK, which is used to permit the initiation of the vehicle to run in the P&G mode, which executes automatic acceleration/deceleration control for automatically increasing/decreasing the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle. This being the case, and as described both above, and in the rejection below, it seems that Shone teaches a situation where the vehicle is decelerating (such as when the accelerator pedal is released and/or when the vehicle is gliding), and automatically increasing deceleration of the vehicle (via. the learning/setting of HSK1 or HSK2 which are used to determine SK, which are used to permit the initiation of the vehicle to run in the P&G mode, which executes automatic acceleration/deceleration control for automatically increasing/decreasing the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle, so as to maintain a determined vehicle-to-vehicle distance or via. the vehicle operator performing an operation to decelerate the vehicle (such as pressing the brake pedal) in the P & G running mode) in accordance with a deceleration depending upon a brake operation be a driver (such as when the driver presses the brake pedal). It is in this way that Shono teaches a situation where the vehicle is decelerating, automatically increasing deceleration of the vehicle in accordance with a deceleration depending upon a brake operation by a driver. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shono et al. (U.S. 20130211686). In re claim 1, Shono teaches a controller (fig. 2-3; electronic control device 100; [0056]; drive control apparatus; [0036]) that controls behavior of a vehicle (various types of vehicle; [0036]; vehicle 6; [0049]), the controller comprising: a control section (as indicated in fig. 4; block s4; note: there are also other areas containing code that controls/impacts acceleration/deceleration, as indicated in fig. 2-4, fig. 10, fig. 12) that controls deceleration (fig. 4; target vehicle deceleration output Pg is also set; [0065]; the motor/generator MG1 or MG2 is controlled according to the target vehicle deceleration output Pg in the gliding run; [0089]) of the vehicle, wherein in a situation where the vehicle (fig. 8a; switching from pulse-driving run to gliding run; [0065]) is being decelerated, when a shift position of the vehicle (inherent) is switched from a first position (inherent and necessarily present, either of 1) clutch is engaged for power transmission (as indicated in fig. 16a, connecting/disconnecting device 214…may be a simple friction clutch; [0092]) or 2) torque converter is in fluid coupled state for transmission or power (as indicated in fig. 15a and explained in [0090])), at which power can be transmitted between a drive source (11, 12) of the vehicle (1) and a drive wheel of the vehicle (1), to a second position (inherent and necessarily present, either of 1) clutch is not engaged for power transmission (as indicated in fig. 16a, connecting/disconnecting device 214…may be a simple friction clutch; [0092]) or 2) torque converter is in non-fluid coupled state for power transmission (as indicated in fig. 15a and explained in [0090])), at which the power cannot be transmitted between the drive source (engine 14 is disconnected from the drive system and held in the non-operated state, so that the vehicle 6 is run in a coasting state (gliding state) with a minimum running resistance; [0065]) and the drive wheel in an unlocked state of the drive wheel (as indicated in [0065]), the control section (fig. 4, S6 and S10) executes automatic deceleration control for automatically increasing the deceleration of the vehicle in accordance with a deceleration depending on a brake operation by a driver of the vehicle (fig. 3; step 114; this initial value HSK0 is subjected to the learning compensation by the learning means 114, to obtain a compensated value as represented by HSK1 or HSK2, by way of example, depending upon a difference of the characteristics of the individual vehicle operators regarding the timings (vehicle-to-vehicle distance) at which they release the accelerator pedal and depress the brake pedal when the vehicle in question comes close to the preceding vehicle; [0061]; note: as indicated in [0061] and equation 1, HSK1 or HSK2 are used to determine SK, which is used to permit the initiation of the vehicle to run in the P&G mode, which executes automatic acceleration/deceleration control for automatically increasing/decreasing the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle). In re claim 2, see claim 1 above. In re claim 3, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein in the automatic deceleration control, the control section controls the deceleration of the vehicle to be equal to or lower than upper limit deceleration (as shown in fig. 4, step S5; upper and lower limits Acc1 and Acc2 are respectively larger and smaller than the accelerator pedal operation amount Acc0; [0066]; and as indicated in [0069]). In re claim 4, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein in the situation where the vehicle is being decelerated, when the shift position is switched from the first position (as explained in claim 1 above, and indicated in fig. 4 and fig. 8a) to the second position (as explained in claim 1 above, and indicated in fig. 4 and fig. 8a) and the brake operation is being performed (an operation to brake the vehicle is performed by the vehicle operator; [0070]; note: as further indicated in fig. 10, step R2 and as explained in [0073] the brake can be operated while the vehicle is in the P & G running mode), the control section executes the automatic deceleration control (as indicated in fig. 4, no at step S11, and returning with yes at step S5, the routine proceeds again to S10, where P & G control is executed). In re claim 5, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein in the situation where the vehicle is being decelerated (as explained above), when the shift position is switched from the first position to the second position (as explained above) and a speed of the vehicle (fig. 8b; vehicle running speed V; [0067]) is higher than a reference speed (fig. 8a; Vhi0, Vhi1; [0067]), the control section executes the automatic deceleration control (the pulse-driving run is changed to the gliding run when the vehicle running speed V has been raised to the upper limit Vhi0 or Vhi1, and the gliding run is changed to the pulse-driving run when the vehicle running speed V has been lowered to the lower limit Vlo0 or Vlo1; [0067]). In re claim 6, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, wherein the control section (as indicated in fig. 2) determines when the brake operation by the driver is canceled (inherent, driver change of mind with regard to braking; note: vehicle is driven via. a human driver) during execution of the automatic deceleration control based on information from a brake sensor (an output signal of a foot brake switch 88 indicating an operated state Bon of a foot brake pedal for a regularly used braking system; [0055]) and, terminates the automatic deceleration control (fig. 4, steps S9, S11). In re claim 8, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, wherein when the shift position is switched from the second position to the first position during execution of the automatic deceleration control (vehicle returns to pulse running mode from glide mode, as indicated in [abstract]), the control section terminates the automatic deceleration control (fig. 4, steps S9, S11). In re claim 9, see claim 1 above. In re claim 10, Shono teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the deceleration depending on the brake operation by the driver is a deceleration generated by a hydraulic pressure control unit (necessarily present; note: it is typical, routine and common in the art that vehicle brake systems are hydraulic, and have a hydraulic pressure control unit, commonly referred to as a master cylinder) in response to an operation amount of a brake by the driver of the vehicle (pressing of the brake pedal) detected by a brake sensor (an output signal of a foot brake switch 88 indicating an operated state Bon of a foot brake pedal for a regularly used braking system; [0055]; Here, the foot brake switch 88 acts as a sensor to detect when the brake pedal has been pressed). In re claim 11, see claim 1 above. 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 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono et al. (U.S. 20130211686). In re claim 7, Shono teaches the controller according to claim 1, wherein the control section terminates the automatic deceleration control (fig. 4, steps S9, S11). Shono lacks further teaching wherein the control section terminates the automatic deceleration control when the vehicle is stopped. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the teachings of Shono to incorporate, wherein the control section terminates the automatic deceleration control when the vehicle is stopped, since a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that when a vehicle is stopped, it is not moving, and thus no longer a need to execute deceleration control to slow the vehicle down, since the vehicle is stopped and not moving. 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 JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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. /JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583432
VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559085
TARGET STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING BIASED BRAKING POWER IN CASE OF STEERING SYSTEM FAILURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552213
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VEHICLE LOAD MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545303
VEHICLE PARKING CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545070
SUSPENSION SYSTEM AND CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
78%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 375 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