Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/927,752

SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AT LEAST ONE OF A SET OF FUNCTIONS IN A VEHICLE INTERIOR, ASSOCIATED METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Examiner
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
Art Unit
2622
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Faurecia Services Groupe
OA Round
2 (Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
348 granted / 678 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
718
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 678 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 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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Pryor (US 2009/0267921). Regarding claim 1: Pryor discloses: A system for controlling at least one of a set of functions in a vehicle interior (abstract: “applications in a vehicle”), comprising a display screen (paragraph 153: “display screen”) and at least one image sensor (paragraph 155: “camera 117), comprising a physical element mechanically linked to said display screen (paragraph 155: “knob 115”) and movable by a user between at least two distinct positions (paragraph 155: “rotatable thereon to various positions”), wjereom the physical element not electrically connected to said display screen, said at least one image sensor being configured to capture images of said physical element and of at least part of the display screen (paragraph 155: “camera 117 which looks at points on the back of the knobs,” where from Fig. 1d the field of view includes the whole display), the system further comprising an electronic control unit connected to said image sensor, the electronic control unit being configured to: assign a function to said physical element (many such functions are disclosed, but for example, paragraph 199-200), detect in at least one image captured by said sensor, a position of said physical element following manipulation by the user (paragraph 200: “camera…senses the position”), determine an action associated with said function, the action being variable depending on the position of the physical element (paragraph 200: “controls the heating…”), and control the implementation of the action corresponding to the position of the physical element (paragraph 200: “controls the heating…”). Regarding claim 2: Pryor discloses: wherein said physical element is a knob, a change in the position of said knob being affected by rotation of the knob (paragraph 155). Regarding claim 3: Pryor discloses: wherein said physical element is a slider, a modification of the position of said slider being affected by a translation of said slider (paragraph 158). Regarding claim 4: Pryor discloses: The system according to claim 1, configured to display, on said display screen, a menu relating to the function assigned to said physical element, the menu comprising sections arranged in such a way that the selected position of the physical element indicates one of said sections (paragraphs 199-200). Regarding claim 5: Pryor discloses: The system according to claim 1, configured to display, on said display screen, a main menu of functions of said set of functions (e.g., Fig. 2f-2g, where knob 277 switches between functions). Regarding claim 6: Pryor discloses: a module for detecting a direction of gaze of one of the vehicle users, and wherein the assignment of a function to said physical element is performed according to the detected direction of gaze, the main menu function towards which the gaze direction is oriented being assigned to said physical element (paragraph 273). Regarding claim 7: Pryor discloses: wherein the assignment of a function to said physical element is effected by implementing a manipulation of the physical element to indicate a function displayed in the main menu, and detecting, in an image captured by said sensor, the position of said physical element (e.g., paragraph 202). Regarding claim 8: Pryor discloses: The system according to claim 1, further comprising a voice recognition module, wherein the assignment of a function to said physical element is performed by voice command (paragraph 164). Regarding claim 9: This is a claim to the method performed by the system of the earlier claims. All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to those claims. No further elaboration is necessary. Regarding claim 10: Pryor discloses: A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising executable code instructions which, when executed by a programmable electronic device, implement the control method according to claim 9 (paragraph 197: “display and vehicle control computer 215,” where the computer has a memory as per, e.g., paragraph 233). Regarding claim 11: Pryor discloses: wherein said physical element is not electrically connected to any other element in the system (Pryor does not show any electrical connections whatsoever, and in the description of how it works in, e.g., paragraph 155, it is clear none are needed). Regarding claim 12: Pryor discloses: wherein said physical element has no electrical connection table (as seen in, e.g., Fig. 1f, there is no cable). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument (really page 2) is that Pryor does not disclose “the physical element is not electrically connected to said display screen.” This is a puzzling statement. Pryor shows the physical element – see, e.g., Fig. 1f, where it is element 165. There is no electrical connection shown there. Pyror describes how it works (e.g., paragraph 155), where the computer uses a camera to look at the position of the knob. Again, there is no electrical connection described there. It functions entirely without any electrical connection. Pryor does not need to explicitly state that there it is not electrically connected when it thoroughly describes it and how it works and it is clear from this description that there is no electrical connection. But Pryor discloses that it would be possible to have “electrical” means (paragraph 196) but that preferably it uses optical means. So it certainly follows from Pryor that there could be no electrical connection. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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. /CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597397
IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE AND IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588388
DISPLAY DEVICE AND TOUCH DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583321
INTEGRATED SLIDE-OUT VEHICLE WORK SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12547262
ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12535903
Display Apparatus Having a Connecting Electrode which Crosses a Bending Area
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 678 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