Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/883,421

APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING HYBRID VEHICLE AND METHOD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Sep 12, 2024
Examiner
AHMED, MASUD
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
969 granted / 1178 resolved
+30.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1205
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1178 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US 12,115,972. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent recite all the limitations of corresponding claims of the instant application along with additional limitations. The limitations claimed within the current application such as a hybrid vehicle having a electric supercharger installed to boost the battery power and to calculate the SOC based on the navigation data is covered by the patented claims. Current claims are broader limitations of the patented claims which is not patentably distinct. The notable difference between Claim 21 and the patented claim 1, where claims 21 rolls the “vehicle” into the apparatus instead of separately reciting engine/drive motor/battery/supercharger; the battery and electric supercharger are not called out here but are required by dependent Claim 22 and by the “driving mode of the battery” language. Broadly claiming “vehicle driven by engine and drive motor” is simply a generic restatement of the hybrid architecture already claimed. Thus Claim 21 is an obvious generic/reshuffled version of patented Claim 1 and is not patentably distinct. 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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips (US 2012/0010767). Claim 21. Phillips teaches an apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: the vehicle configured to be driven by an engine and a drive motor (para 0016, 0018) “The basic components of the HEV powertrain include an internal combustion engine 16 … an electric motor 46…”; a navigation device configured to calculate a driving path from a starting point to a destination point and driving information (para 0004-0005, 0021 and 0023) “Utilizing available route information, including road characteristics, vehicle conditions, and traffic conditions…”; a controller configured to calculate a driving load from the driving path and the driving information calculated by the navigation device (para 0021, 0023) “Environmental condition inputs for controller 10 include road length, road grade, and vehicle speed of a route to be traveled by the vehicle.”, determine an optimal SOC (state of charge) for each section from the starting point to the destination point based on the driving load (para 0004-0005, 0021 and 0031) “Optimizing the charging and discharging of the battery depending on the route.”, determine a driving mode of the vehicle based on a required torque of a driver and a driving mode of a battery to follow the optimal SOC for each section (para 0019, 0021) “Controller 10 controls the charging and discharging of battery 12 and thereby controls the state of charge (SoC) … and manages operating modes.”, and adjust an operating point of the engine (para 0018-0019 and 0029) “ Engine 16… can provide mechanical power … and at the same time charge battery 12…”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 22-40 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP. 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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571 270 3976. 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. MASUD . AHMED Primary Examiner Art Unit 3657A /MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596012
METHOD FOR DETERMINING POINT OF INTEREST FOR USER, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589729
LOAD BALANCING APPROACH TO EXECUTE COST OPTIMIZATION IN MULTI-MODE AND MULTI-GEAR HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589777
VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578723
VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578739
Vehicle Control System
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
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1178 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