Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/893,359

MOBILE ENTITY CONTROL DEVICE, AND MOBILE ENTITY CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Examiner
TISSOT, ADAM D
Art Unit
3663
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
540 granted / 680 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
708
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anabuki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0315056). For claim 1, Anabuki teaches a mobile entity control device comprising: a communication circuit that communicates with a mobile entity capable of autonomous driving (see para. 0098); a communication quality measurement circuit that measures delay of communication with the mobile entity via the communication circuit (see paras. 0201-0202). Anabuki does not explicitly disclose that the measurement circuit is determining a “quality”. However, Anabuki teaches that a delay in communication is measured. One of ordinary skill in the art has the necessary knowledge to draw equivalencies between “quality” and communication delays or latency, as delay and latency are known factors in determining the quality of the communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that communication delays and/or latency are equivalent to the quality of service communications based on the motivation to improve an autonomous vehicle operation with an information processing method and an information processing system capable of reducing the burden on a remote operating party in a remote location (see para. 0007). Continuing with the claim, Anabuki further discloses a determination circuit that determines a risk level of specific locations in a predetermined driving route along which the mobile entity travels (see paras. 0256-0258, no drive events equivalent to high risk); and a control circuit that generates driving control information for controlling travel of the mobile entity based on the communication quality and the risk level (see para. 0128, considers delay and ODD mode; paras. 0183, 0216, ODD relaxed and considers delay), and transmits the driving control information to the mobile entity via the communication circuit (see para. 0289-0290). Referring to claim 2, Anabuki further discloses wherein the determination circuit further determines a service level of a service provided by the mobile entity (see para. 0164), and the control circuit generates the driving control information based on the communication quality, the risk level, and the service level (see paras. 0166, 0195). Pertaining to claim 3, Anabuki further discloses wherein the determination circuit determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on past information including the driving control information from a past (see para. 0214, older command). With regards to claim 4, Anabuki further teaches wherein the past information further includes information used to generate the driving control information (see para. 0214). For claim 5, Anabuki further discloses wherein the determination circuit determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on mobile entity information including pieces of information concerning a plurality of mobile entities with which the mobile entity control device communicates (see paras. 0239-0241), each of the plurality of mobile entities being the mobile entity (see para. 0214, older commands to same vehicle considered). With reference to claim 6, Anabuki further discloses wherein the determination circuit determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on map information indicating a map including the predetermined driving route (see para. 0065, travel plan). Regarding claim 7, Anabuki further discloses wherein the determination circuit determines at least one of the risk level or the service level based on weather information (see paras. 0256-0258, events prohibiting driving functionally equivalent to high risk). Pertaining to claim 8, Anabuki further teaches wherein the control circuit: selects either the risk level or the service level based on the risk level and the service level (see para. 0164); and generates the driving control information based on a selected one of the risk level or the service level (see paras. 0166, 0195). Referring to claim 9, Anabuki further teaches wherein the control circuit: calculates a new driving route based on at least the selected one of the risk level or the service level (see para. 0177); and generates the driving control information to change a driving route of the mobile entity from the predetermined driving route to the new driving route (see para. 0177). For claim 10, it defines subject matter and elements that largely mirror the subject matter and elements defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1. Conclusion Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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. /ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602047
CONTROL METHOD FOR MOBILE OBJECT, MOBILE OBJECT, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589658
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583484
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING POST-TAKEOVER COMPLEXITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570159
PHYSICS-BASED DIMENSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR ONLINE TORQUE OPTIMIZATION IN ELECTRIFIED VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565117
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 680 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