Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/683,726

EXTENDED-USE MODE FOR AN ANCILLARY VEHICLE FUNCTION

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 14, 2024
Examiner
KARWAN, SIHAR A
Art Unit
3658
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jaguar Land Rover Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
215 granted / 385 resolved
+3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
426
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 385 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Amendments to the claims have been recorded. Applicant’s Arguments The 101 and 112 rejections have been withdrawn based on Applicants amendments. Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments. 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 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. (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 1-10, 15-16. 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sloan US 5,332,958. 1. A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controllers, wherein the control system is configured to: in a first, default operating mode, deactivate an ancillary vehicle function in dependence on a powertrain of the vehicle entering a deactivated state responsive to a vehicle-off event; and Fig. 7 ignition switch key in the off [default mode responsive to a vehicle-off event]. Vehicle key position: accessory; off; on; crank or start. in a second operating mode triggered by a user request, enable the ancillary vehicle function to be used while the powertrain is in the deactivated state responsive to the vehicle-off event, Fig. 7 ignition switch in accessory position [triggered by a user request turning the key, to accessory deactivated state responsive to a vehicle-off event]. in dependence on monitored energy availability of a battery of the vehicle being greater than a depletion limit of the battery, Col. 10 line 25; means for monitoring the battery voltage indicative of remaining [greater than] battery energy wherein the depletion limit of the battery is dependent on one or more monitored variable parameters. Col. 10 line 25; monitoring the battery voltage [one] and battery energy [or more] 2. The control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more monitored variable parameters are indicative of at least one of: capacity of the battery; voltage or energy from claim 1. internal resistance of the battery; or temperature of the battery. Col.1 line 25 as well as a function of the battery temperature. 3. The control system of claim 2, wherein the depletion limit is configured to rise in dependence on at least one of: capacity of the battery falling; Col. 10 line 25; means for monitoring the battery voltage indicative of remaining [greater than] battery energy internal resistance of the battery rising; temperature of the battery being below a first threshold; or Col. 10 line 25; means for monitoring the battery voltage indicative of remaining [first threshold greater than] battery energy temperature of the battery being above a second threshold. Col.1 line 25 as well as a function [threshold] of the battery temperature [second threshold]. 4. The control system of claim 1, wherein the depletion limit comprises an engine-start reserve. Col.7 line 37; the battery voltage VB is less than the cut off voltage V.sub.CUT, indicative that the battery has just sufficient energy capacity for subsequent engine ignition. 5. The control system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to transition from the second operating mode to the first operating mode in dependence on the depletion limit of the battery being reached. Col.7 line 40; step 128 branches to step 112 where the short term timer is initiated. Steps 112, 114, 116 and 118 then initiate the short term timer in the fashion previously described to impose a time delay, e.g. two minutes, between the time that the battery voltage falls below the battery cut off level and the time that the battery disconnection actually occurs in order to permit engine ignition. Also see Fig.5 118 off [first mode]. 6. The control system of Fig. 5 #112, short timer enables? 114 enable short timer, 116 short timer elapsed? 7. The control system of claim 6, wherein the second operating mode is configured to pause the timer such that the ancillary vehicle function is enabled beyond the predetermined amount of time while the powertrain is in the deactivated state. Fig. 5 #112 pauses timer [beyond a predetermined amount of time while the powertrain is deactivated state {i.e. accessories key setting] #116. Also, C10L5; the electrical load comprises at least two separate banks of electrical loads or accessories. In this case, the device compares the battery voltage with at least two separate cut off voltages, each of which varies as a function of time. 8. The control system of claim 1 wherein the second operating modeFig. 7 ignition switch key in the off. Vehicle key position: accessory; off; on; crank or start. [ignition switch key is user actuated i.e. triggered by user via key i.e. machine-human interface] 9. The control system of claim 1, wherein the ancillary vehicle function comprises a vehicle entertainment function. Col.10 line 15; a disconnect signal is generated which electrically disconnects the battery from the first bank of vehicle accessories [radio]. 10. The control system of claim 9, wherein the ancillary vehicle function comprises a loudspeaker function. Col.10 line 15; a disconnect signal is generated which electrically disconnects the battery from the first bank of vehicle accessories [radio]. Also, Turner US 6249106 Col.1 line 20 discharges the battery, leaving the radio on, 15. The control system of claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a starting-lighting-ignition (SLI} battery configured to start an engine of the vehicle. Col.7 line 37; the battery voltage VB is less than the cut off voltage V.sub.CUT, indicative that the battery has just sufficient energy capacity for subsequent engine ignition. 16. The control system of claim 15, wherein the SLI battery comprises a nominal voltage of less than 60V. Col4. Line 60; a digital signal on the port 226 that effectively compares the battery voltage to a very low or high voltage, e.g. nine volts or 13.8 volts, respectively. 18. The vehicle comprising the control system and ancillary vehicle function of claim 1. Fig. 8 and C2L40 circuit diagram of the connect/disconnect device responsive to a switch in the vehicle. 19. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1. 20. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 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. Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan as applied to claim above, and further in view of Ozawa US 20130200848. Sloan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15; but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 12 and 17. However, Ozawa teaches Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to [112] apply auxiliary changing /discharging and measuring of battery level in vehicle such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. 12. The control system of claim 1, configured to cause one or more output devices to output user feedback indicating a closeness of the monitored energy availability is to the depletion limit. Ozawa 112, battery level display, or a control device that conducts information processing associated with the control of the power consumption device on the basis of information about the secondary battery cell. Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to [112] apply auxiliary changing /discharging and measuring of battery level in vehicle such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. 13. The control system of claim 12, wherein the user feedback comprises a visual scale having a minimum set at the depletion limit and/or an alert configured to indicate when the depletion limit is reached. Ozawa 112 battery level display 17. The control system of claim 15, wherein the SLI battery comprises one or more Lithium-ion cells. Ozawa 91, battery cell 12 is made up of a lithium-ion Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to [112] apply auxiliary changing /discharging and measuring of battery level in vehicle such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan as applied to claim above, and further in view of Rocholl US 20200346547. Sloan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1; but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11. However, Rocholl teaches 11. The control system of claim 1 wherein the second operating mode requires a rear tailgate of the vehicle to be opened. Rocholl 28; the auxiliary power system 1410 may power one or more electric actuators to open/close the tailgate Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allocate auxiliary power to power electric actuators such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan and Rocholl as applied to claim above, and further in view of Lobo US 20220144605. 14. Sloan and Rocholl teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, But to not teach wherein the second operation mode further requires a parking brake being activated. However; Lobo teaches wherein the second operation mode further requires a parking brake being activated. Lobo 43; The computer system receives a request. The computer system retrieves status information to ensure the vehicle parking brake is on, then the commands open trunk [tailgate Fig.1]. Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to integrate vehicle system to allocate auxiliary power to power electric actuators such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Also, Turner US 6249106 Col.1 line 20 discharges the battery, leaving the radio on, 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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm. 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589502
CARGO-HANDLING APPARATUS, CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589750
VEHICULAR CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589504
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COGNITIVE SURVEILLANCE ROBOT FOR SECURING INDOOR SPACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583100
ROBOT TO WHICH DIRECT TEACHING IS APPLIED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576516
HUMAN SKILL BASED PATH GENERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+25.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 385 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