Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/840,755

CONTROL DEVICE FOR ARTICULATED VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Examiner
STECKBAUER, KEVIN R
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
J-QuAD DYNAMICS Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
507 granted / 623 resolved
+11.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
650
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§102
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 623 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1-6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raad et al (US2016/0229451A1). Regarding claim 1, Raad teaches a control device for a combination vehicle including a tractor including a steered wheel that is a wheel configured to change a direction of travel of the vehicle, and a trailer towed by the tractor (Figures 1-2+; Paragraphs 0021+), the control device comprising a control unit (illustrated in Figure 2) configured to, when a reverse operation of the combination vehicle is performed, assist a reverse operation of the trailer by causing a controlled variable (desired hitch angle [and/or steering angle, disclosed throughout as having a target]) to follow a target value of reverse control that is set through a specific operation by an operator (Paragraphs 0032, 0048, 0058), wherein the control unit is configured to execute a process of limiting the target value and a process of limiting a time rate of change in the target value from a viewpoint of achieving appropriate vehicle behavior (Paragraphs 0021, 0029-0030, 0033, 0058-0067, 0076-0085). Regarding claim 2, Raad discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Raad teaches that the control unit is configured to execute the process of limiting the target value and the process of limiting the time rate of change in the target value from a viewpoint of suppressing occurrence of a jackknife phenomenon (See previously cited sections, including Paragraphs 0059-0060, 0079, 0082, etc.). Regarding claim 3, Raad discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Raad teaches that the target value is a target hitch angle that is a target value of a hitch angle that is an angle between a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the tractor and a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the trailer (as cited above); and the control unit is configured to calculate a limit value for a time rate of change in the target hitch angle by substituting, into an equation of motion for a hitch angle velocity that is a time rate of change in the hitch angle, a value of a maximum steering angle that is a maximum value of a physically possible steering angle of the steered wheel, or a maximum value of the steering angle that is changeable during a unit time from the steering angle at a current time point and is determined based on a maximum steering angle velocity obtained by differentiating the maximum steering angle (See previously cited sections, including Paragraphs 0078-0084, etc.). Regarding claim 4, Raad discloses the invention of claim 3 as discussed above, and Raad teaches that the control unit is configured to execute: a process of calculating a jackknife hitch angle that is a boundary value of the hitch angle as to whether a jackknife phenomenon occurs by substituting zero for a value of the hitch angle velocity (inherent to the calculation disclosed, since the jackknife hitch angle is a static maximum for the hitch angle) and the value of the maximum steering angle for a value of the steering angle in the equation of motion for the hitch angle velocity, and solving the equation of motion in terms of the hitch angle; and a process of setting the jackknife hitch angle as a limit value for the target hitch angle (See previously cited sections, including Paragraphs 0059-0065). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the virtual steering angle and change rate calculations of claim 5. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST. 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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. /KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600403
METHOD FOR CHECKING A STEER-BY-WIRE STEERING SYSTEM, STEERING SYSTEM, AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589740
CONTROLLER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR LEAN VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583513
Method for Monitoring a Steering System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583454
REVERSE SUPPORT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576823
BRAKE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ) ESTIMATION FOR PROGNOSTICS AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT (PHM) AND IMPROVED LOAD BALANCE (LB)
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
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 623 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