Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/818,233

Method And Apparatus For Controlling Speed Of Vehicle

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 28, 2024
Examiner
RUDY, ANDREW J
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
637 granted / 768 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
778
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 768 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Priority 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on September 25, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings 4. The drawings filed on August 28, 2024 are accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-20 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. From claims 1 and 11, the terms various adjectives, e.g. first, second, target, set, placed before/after the terms events, speed, section and control, et al. are nebulous in juxtaposition with the descriptive portion of the specification and associated drawing figures. In short, it’s not clear what is being claimed. Regarding claims 4, 14 the predefined positive number less than 1 is not clear as to its metes and bounds. 7. 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. 8. Claims 1-20 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. From claims 1 and 11, the terms various adjectives, e.g. first, second, target, set, placed before/after the terms events, speed, section and control, et al. are nebulous in juxtaposition with the descriptive portion of the specification and associated drawing figures, In short, it’s no clear what is being claimed. For example, the terms first/second events have no definition, as understood. The other terms do not cure this basic flaw. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 10. Claims 1-20, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al., US 2023/0347889. Regarding claim 1 and 11, Yun discloses from Figs. 1-5 and related text, a system/method comprising, a sensor, e.g. [0050], a processor, e.g. 150, memory, e.g. 120, an apparatus, e.g. a vehicle 100, a first/second/ event, e.g. reference values, e.g. [0015], a target speed, e.g. [0059], a set speed, e.g. [0043], and current speed, e.g. speed control panel determines such, a driving route, e.g. [0011, 0016, 0017, 0057, 0061], and a speed limit, e.g. [0017, 0022, 0031, 0055, 0060-61, 0075]. Yun does not specifically disclose a reference distance, sections, nor predefined target number less than 1. Regarding claims 2 and 14, as understood, adjusting a predefined positive number less than one appears an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Official Notice of such is taken. To have provided discrete system/steps adjusting a predefined positive number less than one for Yun would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as the motivation for doing such is to provide a workable vehicle to transvers a geographic area to perform its intended function. Official Notice is taken that reference distances to measure speed from a plurality of events between sections, e.g. a distance between points A B having an end point, has been common knowledge in the vehicle mapping speed setting art. To have viewed the distance inherently would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. To have provided discrete system/steps for Yun would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yun with a reasonable expectation of success as the motivation for doing such is to provide a workable vehicle to transvers a geographic area to perform its intended function. Regarding claim 2, 3 and 5-10, these limitations are simply adjusting various speeds depending upon various conditions using the speed control panel, e.g. 140, see Fig. 3, [0037-0103]. To have provided these discrete system/steps for Yun would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as the motivation for doing such is to provide a workable vehicle to transvers a geographic area at appropriate speed due to varied events, e.g. road surface, distance, to perform its intended function. Claims 12, 13 and 15-20 mirror claims 2, 3 and 5-10 and are rejected for the same reasoning. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is 571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3668 571-272-6789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600369
DRIVING ABILITY DETERMINING SYSTEM AND DRIVING ABILITY DETERMINING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588577
Ground Following Optimization with Position Control Systems and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583468
SIGNAL DISTRIBUTION TO AND/OR FROM CONTROLLERS IN VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583548
CONTROLLER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR RIDER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576885
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE CONTROL
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 768 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