Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/949,115

VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Examiner
SOOFI, YAZAN A
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 809 resolved
+37.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
828
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§103
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§102
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 809 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 Status of Claims Claims 1-5 of U.S. Application No. 18/949115 filed on 11/15/2024 have been examined. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Regarding claims 1-5, Claim limitation “analysis unit that analyzes…”, “output unit that outputs…”, “acquisition unit that acquires…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “detecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to not have corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim element “analysis unit that analyzes…”, “output unit that outputs…”, “acquisition unit that acquires…” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Application does not disclose any means in the specification. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 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 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ropel et al. [US 2024/0140261 A1], hereinafter referred to as Ropel. As to Claim 1, Ropel discloses a vehicle control system that controls a vehicle driven with electricity, the system comprising: an analysis unit that analyzes a deterioration factor of an electricity efficiency of the vehicle ([see at least Fig. 1 and 0107]); an output unit that outputs one or more electricity efficiency improvement plans for improving the deterioration factor of the electricity efficiency ([see at least 0067, 0119, 0129 and 0261]); an acquisition unit that acquires any electricity efficiency improvement plan that is selected at an operation terminal out of the one or more electricity efficiency improvement plans output from the output unit ([see at least Fig. 7, 0167, 0153 and 0166]); and a control unit that controls the vehicle based on a control content according to the electricity efficiency improvement plan acquired by the acquisition unit ([see at least 0067, 0076, 0157 and 0261]). As to Claim 2, Ropel discloses a vehicle control system, wherein the analysis unit analyzes the deterioration factor of the electricity efficiency based on at least any of a frequency of rapid acceleration, a frequency of rapid deceleration, a frequency of rapid charge, a degree of deterioration of a battery capacity, a payload, and an amount of air conditioner use ([see at least 0056, 0060, 0101, 0121, 0155 and 0157]). As to Claim 3, Ropel discloses a vehicle control system, wherein the output unit further outputs information regarding the deterioration factor of the electricity efficiency ([see at least 0067, 0119, 0129 and 0261]). As to Claim 4, Ropel discloses a vehicle control system, wherein: the acquisition unit further acquires information regarding a target electricity efficiency of the vehicle via the operation terminal; and the analysis unit analyzes the deterioration factor of the electricity efficiency of the vehicle when the electricity efficiency of the vehicle deteriorates more than the target electricity efficiency ([see at least 0140, 0141, 0157, 0167 and 0261]). As to Claim 5, Ropel discloses a vehicle control system, wherein: the acquisition unit further acquires information regarding a peripheral environment of the vehicle; and the output unit further outputs a degree of recommendation according to the peripheral environment of the vehicle for each of the one or more electricity efficiency improvement plans for improving the deterioration factor of the electricity efficiency([see at least 0140-0144 and 0166]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule. 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. 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. /YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600426
A VEHICLE WITH ADVERTISING DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602059
ROBOT, CONTROL METHOD FOR ROBOT, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602062
REDUCING RESISTANCE TO MOVEMENT OF DEVICES THAT INCLUDE CASTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583482
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MODE CONFUSION AVOIDANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585290
UNMANNED VEHICLE, SYSTEM OF CONTROLLING UNMANNED VEHICLE, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING UNMANNED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 809 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