Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/730,246

VEHICLE MOVEMENT CONTROL DEVICE AND VEHICLE MOVEMENT CONTROL METHOD

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Priority
Jan 20, 2022 — JP 2022-007138 +1 more
Examiner
MERLINO, DAVID P
Art Unit
3665
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hitachi Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
329 granted / 461 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
483
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 461 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 . 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. Introduction Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 9 recite setting a specified value of a physical quantity of a vehicle behavior based on a passenger arrangement and a mass of passengers. However, there is inadequate description in the specification to show that Applicant had possession of this feature at the time of filing. The only mention of mass or arrangement is in paragraph(s) 78, which generically states that multiple specified values may be set based on mass, size, and arrangement of passengers and cargos. This high-level statement is no more than a conclusionary statement about a possibility with no description or examples as to how it would be done. The specification does not provide adequate explanation to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recreate the device or to show that the Applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing. Furthermore, there is no description as to how the mass or positions are obtained or calculated. Claim(s) 2-8 and 11 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the specification provides adequate description to show that Applicant had possession, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments conclude that the “the specification clearly identifies those parameters as inputs to the specified value setting part”; however, merely stating that inputs can be used does not provide adequate description as to how they are used or how the system transitions from those inputs to the specified values, such that one in the art would understand how to set a specified value of a physical quantity of a vehicle behavior based on the mass and passenger arrangement, as claimed. There are no description or examples to show that Applicant had possession of the claimed limitation at the time of filing. Further, there is no description as to how the arrangement or mass is calculated or obtained. 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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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. /David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §112
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 20, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 29, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746916
SYSTEMS, PROGRAM PRODUCTS, AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES TRAVELING WITHIN ENVIRONMENTS
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741664
IMPLEMENTING SYNTHETIC SCENES FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
5y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735055
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE OPERATIONAL OPTIMIZATION
1y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12715478
Goal-based Motion Forecasting
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12715469
METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TARGET TRAJECTORY FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATED IN AT LEAST SEMI-AUTOMATED FASHION ON A SINGLE-LANE ROAD, COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, AND ASSISTANCE SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.3%)
2y 7m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 461 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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