Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/904,247

Methods And Systems For Determining Information Of Static Occupancy

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Priority
Aug 19, 2024 — EU 24195108.6
Examiner
BUTLER, RODNEY ALLEN
Art Unit
3666
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Aptiv Technologies AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
872 granted / 988 resolved
+36.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 988 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of the Claims This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 16, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 have been amended, claim 8 has been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 15 are pending and examined below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the 35 USC 112 issues discussed in the current rejection. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in claim 1, the “mean that is at least a predetermined distance threshold apart from the respective means of the other hypotheses” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (Emphasis added.) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 – 7 and 9 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In line 27 of claim 1, the particular “means” recited in the phrase “a mean that is at least a predetermined distance threshold apart from the respective means of the other hypotheses” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (Emphasis added.) Clarification is required. Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency. 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 – 7 and 9 – 15 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. In line 27 of claim 1, the particular “means” recited in the phrase “a mean that is at least a predetermined distance threshold apart from the respective means of the other hypotheses” is not described in the claims or specification. (Emphasis added.) What means is applicant referring to? Clarification is required. Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Examiner's Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Electronic Communications Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application' s record. /RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 16, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704374
METHOD FOR CHARACTERIZING THE ENVIRONMENT OF A MOBILE DEVICE, PRODUCING A STATIC SPACE GRID AND/OR A FREE SPACE GRID
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703248
ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704377
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND LEARNING MODEL
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703616
DRIVERLESS TRANSPORT VEHICLE
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12693420
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING LANE LINE BASED ON LIDAR DATA
4y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.2%)
1y 11m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 988 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