Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/842,818

DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE, DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 30, 2024
Examiner
STECKBAUER, KEVIN R
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
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

§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 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: “detection device”, “brake device”, and “steering device” in claims 1-10. 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 § 112 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 9 and 10 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. Claims 9 and 10 recite “perform[ing] either or both of…” followed by a recitation that makes it unclear what the “two” steps being potentially alternatively performed are. Then, each of the claims goes on to define aspects of everything recited in the paragraph limitation potentially containing the two steps which are referred to as “either or both of”. Further, claim 9 is directed to a method, but all of the limitations of the claim are contingent upon conditions which are not required in the claimed invention, found anywhere “when…” is recited in the claim (See the contingent limitation section of MPEP [2111.04 II.]). This, further renders the claim unclear. For continued examination, claim 9 is interpreted as having each instance of “when” replaced by an “in response to” clause in order to positively recited the existence of each condition in the claimed invention (thus requiring each step to actually be performed); and both claims 9 and 10 are interpreted as having “perform[ing] either or both of” deleted. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 are allowed. Claim 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the interlinked series of method steps and conditions, including correlation with the determination of no space for the vehicle to perform avoidance steering to in any of travel paths to sides of the target object at a time when the third condition is satisfied, and including changing braking control mode based on inability to continue first/second preliminary operation. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest art is cited on the attached PTO-892 form. 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 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (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