Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/822,977

DRIVING SUPPORT APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 03, 2024
Priority
Oct 31, 2023 — JP 2023-186164
Examiner
POPE, DARYL C
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
1093 granted / 1280 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1297
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
60.6%
+20.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1280 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 . 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 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Applicant’s claim 1 recites, “A driving support apparatus”, wherein the term apparatus is deemed as a placeholder for a means plus function type claim. The Claim fails the three prong test, because it recites a means, and a function, but is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. In particular, the applicant recites a driving support, and wherein the support is configured to determine a median strip, and not perform an alert when a median strip is present between a host vehicle and an approaching vehicle. The driving support is the only element listed to perform any of the functions recited in the claim, and is therefore considered a single means. In accordance with MPEP 2181, A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by its terms is limited to "an element in a claim for a combination." Therefore, single means claims that do not recite a combination cannot invoke section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. As such, they are not limited to the structure, material or act disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function. Thus, a single means limitation that is properly construed will cover all means of performing the claimed function. However, a single means claim covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function in the claims, but the specification only discloses at most on the those means known to the inventor. Therefore, a claim of such breadth reads on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification. 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 1-3, and 5 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driving support" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the applicant intended to refer back to “the driving support apparatus”, as recited in line 1 of claim 1. However, “the driving support” in line 5 could be interpreted as referring to a separate element, and therefore, lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F. 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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. /DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 03, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 16, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639995
PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12633217
CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 10m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12620311
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 7m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12617338
VEHICULAR LAMP
1y 9m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12617277
DISPLAY DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted May 05, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+6.4%)
2y 3m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1280 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