Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/953,500

Assisted Perception for Autonomous Vehicles

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
OH, HARRY Y
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Waymo LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
584 granted / 684 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
707
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 684 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The applicant filed an IDS on 11/20/24. Each has been annotated and considered. 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 1-20 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. Regarding claims 1 (and similarly 16 and 20), the term “unusual event” lacks written description. While it is mentioned in the claims, only specification [0025] discloses this term, stating “For example, the object may be a person located near the side of the road, the autonomous vehicle may attempt to identify whether the person is just someone walking in the road or if the person is attempting to direct traffic and whether he or she is signaling the autonomous vehicle to drive or to stop. In such a case, the autonomous vehicle could detect that this is likely an unusual event”. The term “unusual event” in the claims can be interpreted to include more in scope than the person as disclosed in the Specification. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. The claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patents 11815903, 10962981, 10474159, 10095236, 9864378, 9679206 and 9563199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in the instant application are encompassed by the claims of US Patents 11815903, 10962981, 10474159, 10095236, 9864378, 9679206 and 9563199 as mapped below: Instant Application 18953800 App 18484090 Patent 11815903 Patent 10962981 Patent 10474159 Patent 10095236 Patent 9864378 Patent 9679206 Patent 9563199 1, 16, 20 1, 14, 20 1, 12, 16 1, 10, 18 1,8,15 1, 9, 17 1, 9, 15 1, 8, 15 1, 7, 13 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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. /HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664C
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600028
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT COMPRISING AN AXLE DRIVE WITH A COMPACT CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589503
ROBOT CONTROL APPARATUS, ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589498
Deployment System for Additive Manufacturing Robot Fleet
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589486
ROBOT AND ROBOT-CONTROLLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576541
SURFACE FINISH QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 684 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