Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/695,195

CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Examiner
TC 3600, DOCKET
Art Unit
3600
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Aichi Steel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
4%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
6%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 4% of cases
4%
Career Allow Rate
6 granted / 143 resolved
-47.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
188 currently pending
Career history
331
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 143 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 1. This application has been examined. The preliminary amendment filed 3/25/24 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 3. The IDS filed 3/25/24 and 12/18/24 have been considered. 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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. A. As per claim 1, at lines 9-10 and 15 the claim recites “the deviation in the lateral direction with respect to the magnetic marker”; however, the claim only specifies one element (magnetic marker) but not the other element for which the lateral deviation is determined. As can best be discerned, the deviation may be between the vehicle and the magnetic marker or possibly between the control point and the magnetic marker. Clarification is required. B. As per claim 9, at line 10 the claim recites “the deviation in the lateral direction with respect to the magnetic marker”; however, the claim only specifies one element (magnetic marker) but not the other element for which the lateral deviation is determined. As can best be discerned, the deviation may be between the vehicle and the magnetic marker or possibly between the control point and the magnetic marker. Clarification is required. C. All claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected for the same reasons. 5. Claims 1-20, as best interpreted given the deficiency noted above, are distinguishable over the prior art. The closest prior art appears to be Nunes et al. (publ.- IDS) which discloses a process of measuring the deviation in the lateral direction with respect to the magnetic marker (Fig. 10; 4.3: “where dm is the magnetic ruler measure which corresponds to the distance between the marker with known position (xm, ym) and the magnetic-sensing ruler central point”); a process of obtaining the vehicle azimuth (4.3: “The fusion of odometry data with absolute positioning data is made by means of EKFs. The vehicle’s pose is defined by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y) and heading (ө) (i.e., azimuth), which are the state variables of the EKP”); a process of calculating a designated steered angle as a control target of the steered angle for bringing the deviation of the control point in the lateral direction closer to zero (see Fig. 8; 3.2- steering control modules); and a process of controlling the steered angle of the steered wheel by taking the designated steered angle as the control target (see Fig. 8; 3.2- steering control modules). Nunes does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest, as can best be determined given the lack of clarity noted above, a process of calculating, for the control point set at a position different from a position of the magnetic unit in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, the deviation of the control point in the lateral direction with respect to the target path, based on the deviation in the lateral direction with respect to the magnetic marker and the vehicle azimuth. 6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, • Yamamoto et al. (WO 2020/138471)- discloses determining orientation of vehicle traveling on road having magnetic markers and controls steering to reduce lateral deviation; includes means for measuring vehicle azimuth (IMU); performs lane keeping. • Yamamoto et al. (US 2019/0196496)- magnetic sensors sense magnetism of magnetic markers arranged along a travel route (Fig. 1); measures lateral deviation relative to magnetic marker; difference between lateral shift amounts with respect to two adjacent markers to estimate deviation of a vehicle in a traveling direction with respect to route direction. • JP 3727429- detects deviation in horizontal direction of a vehicle traveling a route for automatic steering; detects magnetic markers (nails) embedded in the road; calculates azimuth deviation and deviation in horizontal direction of vehicle and provides input to steering control system. 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2. 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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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. /MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 8813663
SEEDING MACHINE WITH SEED DELIVERY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
Patent null
Interconnection module of the ornamental electrical molding
Granted
Patent null
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTITY SPECIFIC, DATA CAPTURE AND EXCHANGE OVER A NETWORK
Granted
Patent null
Systems and Methods for Performing Workflow
Granted
Patent null
DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PROTOCOL TO INCENTIVIZE TRANSACTIONAL AND NON-TRANSACTIONAL COMMERCE
Granted
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
4%
Grant Probability
6%
With Interview (+1.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 143 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month