Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/943,292

VEHICLE EVENT PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 11, 2024
Examiner
FLEMING, FAYE M
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Polaris Industries Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1428 granted / 1549 resolved
+40.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§102
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1549 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Allowable Subject Matter The indicated allowability of claims 1-5, 11-17 and 20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Ohno, et al. (10,315,606) and Llamazares Domper, et al. (11,772,593). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow. 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) 1-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno, et al. (10,315,606). Ohno discloses a seat 12 for a vehicle, wherein the seat comprises a backrest 16; a headrest 18; and one or more airbags 20, 22 stored within at least one of the backrest or the headrest, wherein the one or more airbags include one or more arm wings 22B, which, when deployed, are sized and shaped to encapsulate at least a portion of one or more arms of an occupant of the seat, as shown in Figure 12. The one or more arms wings are generally conical, when deployed. The backrest and the headrest include respective frames 96, and wherein the one or more airbags are stored within at least one of the frames of the backrest or the headrest, see the Figures. The seat of claim 1, further comprises a helmet airbag, which, when deployed, is sized and shaped to encapsulate a head of an occupant of the seat. The helmet airbag is generally spherical, when deployed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno, et al. (10,315,606) in view of Llamazares Domper, et al. (11,772,593). Ohno teaches the claimed invention except for a method for deploying one or more airbags. Llamazares Domper discloses a control system comprising a controller that detects a vehicle event based on the sensors outputs such as the kinematic tolerance particulars and deploying one or more airbags in response to determining that the kinematic tolerance is exceeded (see, col.2, line 60-col. 3, line 3 and col. 9, lines 21-29). Based on the teachings of Llamazares Domper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ohno to provide a setting for kinematic torlerance of the vehicle to facilitate protecting an occupant during a collision in a controlled manner. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-10 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art recited discloses common inventive concepts as the claimed present invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Faye M. Fleming whose telephone number is (571)272-6672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, Paul N. Dickson can be reached at (571) 272-7742. 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. /FAYE M FLEMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600415
Motor vehicle comprising a roof module and at least two environment sensors
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600411
VEHICLE FRONT PART STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600188
PNEUMATIC SUSPENSION ARRANGEMENT CONTAINING A NON-NEWTONIAN FLUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589038
MOBILE DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM AND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590479
DOOR LATCH DEVICE FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1549 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