Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/987,839

VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Examiner
PETTIEGREW, TOYA R
Art Unit
3662
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
96 granted / 156 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
194
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§103
63.1%
+23.1% vs TC avg
§102
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 156 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 19: wherein the fourth other vehicle Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200110418 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Lim et al. (US 20240177609 A1; hereinafter Lim). Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a vehicle control device (see at least, [0029] FIG. 2B…a vehicle control apparatus ) comprising: a processor (see at least, [0008] a vehicle control apparatus includes …a controller configured to include at least one processor), wherein the processor is configured to execute a vehicle control for assist to reduce a collision risk between an own vehicle and a target object existing in a predetermined angle range in front of a traveling direction of the own vehicle, when an execution condition is satisfied (see at least, Fig 7, [0116] when the target 20 is located in the zone C, the vehicle controller 230 may generate and output a control signal to force brake the vehicle 10), wherein the processor is configured to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition based on a behavior of the own vehicle on a traveling route and a behavior of other vehicle that is existing on the traveling route (see at least, Fig 8, [0136] When the vehicle 10 stops, the vehicle 10 may set the second region of interest A2, detect the target 20 that has entered roundabout, and determine whether the target 20 is located in the second region of interest A2), and wherein the traveling route includes a circulation path of a roundabout and vicinity of the roundabout on a connecting path that connect to the circulation path (see at least Fig 8). [AltContent: textbox (e.g. Predetermined Angle Ranges (e.g. Zones A, B and C))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Connecting Path)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Circulation Path)] PNG media_image1.png 500 517 media_image1.png Greyscale Choi does not explicitly teach the execution condition is satisfied when a determination condition that the collision risk is greater than or equal to a predetermined level is satisfied. However, Lim teaches this limitation. Lim teaches the execution condition is satisfied when a determination condition that the collision risk is greater than or equal to a predetermined level is satisfied (see at least, [0040] The processor 130 controls the traveling behavior using the surrounding environment information on a congestion situation in the roundabout, and controls the traveling behavior for entering the roundabout by performing a traveling negotiation with another vehicle with a collision risk that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include the execution condition is satisfied when a determination condition that the collision risk is greater than or equal to a predetermined level is satisfied as taught by Lim on order to execute safe traveling and prevent accidents through traveling negotiations between a vehicle that intends to enter a roundabout and a vehicle that is traveling within the roundabout (Lim, [0032]). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Lim teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Lim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, when a third specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the third specific condition is not satisfied (see at least, [0081] through a traveling negotiation coordination request of the traveling vehicle (HV) that temporarily stops before entering the roundabout, a traveling negotiation coordination result which is transmitted by the intervention of the RSU, or traveling negotiations between vehicles…the traveling behavior control in the roundabout is performed), wherein the third specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a third own vehicle (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle HV) behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a fifth other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV4) or a sixth other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV2), wherein the third own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is travelling on a third connecting path connected to the circulation path in order to enter the circulation path or the own vehicle is stopping on the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, [0082] the traveling vehicle HV enters the roundabout), wherein the fifth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is travelling on the circulation path toward a connection part where the circulation path is connected to the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV4), and wherein the sixth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV2). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Sixth Other Vehicle Behavior, RV2)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Fifth Other Vehicle Behavior, RV4)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Third Own Vehicle Behavior, HV)] PNG media_image2.png 517 492 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee to include the processor is configured to execute, when a third specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the third specific condition is not satisfied as taught by Lim on order to execute safe traveling and prevent accidents through traveling negotiations between a vehicle that intends to enter a roundabout and a vehicle that is traveling within the roundabout (Lim, [0032]). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200110418 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Lim et al. (US 20240177609 A1; hereinafter Lim) in further view of Jung et al. (US 20200074863 A1; hereinafter Jung). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Lim teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute, when a first specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the first specific condition is not satisfied, wherein the first specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a first own vehicle behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a first other vehicle behavior or a second other vehicle behavior, wherein the first own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is traveling on the circulation path, wherein the first other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is traveling on a first connecting path that is connected to the circulation path in front of the traveling direction of the own vehicle, and the other vehicle is approaching to the circulation path for enter the circulation path, and wherein the second other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter the first connecting path. However, Jung teaches these limitations. Jung teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, when a first specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the first specific condition is not satisfied, wherein the first specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a first own vehicle behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a first other vehicle behavior or a second other vehicle behavior (see at least, [0066] n response to sensing at least one target vehicle (C) 510 that is expected to enter the roundabout 230, the controller 140 may be configured to determine a risk of collision between the host vehicle 210 and the target vehicle 510, and adjust the speed of the host vehicle 210 in response to the determined risk of collision), wherein the first own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is traveling on the circulation path (see at least, Fig 5 vehicle A), wherein the first other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is traveling on a first connecting path that is connected to the circulation path in front of the traveling direction of the own vehicle, and the other vehicle is approaching to the circulation path for enter the circulation path (see at least, Fig 5 vehicle C, [0066] The sensor unit 130 may be configured to sense at least one target vehicle (C) 510, which is expected to enter the roundabout 230 within a predetermined forward range FR (e.g., a predetermined distance ahead of the host vehicle) of the host vehicle (A) 210), and wherein the second other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter the first connecting path (see at least, Fig 5 vehicle B). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. First Other Vehicle Behavior, C)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. First Own Vehicle Behavior, A)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Second Other Vehicle Behavior, B)] PNG media_image3.png 458 500 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Lee and Lim to include to execute, when a first specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the first specific condition is not satisfied as taught by Jung in order to avoid a collision with a target vehicle when traveling through a roundabout (Jung, [0070]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200110418 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Lim et al. (US 20240177609 A1; hereinafter Lim) in further view of Choi et al. (US 20200160704 A1; hereinafter Choi). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Lim teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute, when a second specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the second specific condition is not satisfied, wherein the second specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a second own vehicle behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a third other vehicle behavior or a fourth other vehicle behavior, wherein the second own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter a second connecting path that is connected to the circulation path, wherein the third other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is travelling on the second connecting path and approaching to the circulation path for enter the circulation path, and wherein the forth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is stopping on the second connecting path in front of the circulation path in order to enter the circulation path. However, Choi teaches these limitations. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, when a second specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the second specific condition is not satisfied, wherein the second specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a second own vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 112) and the behavior of other vehicle is either a third other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 113) or a fourth other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 111), wherein the second own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter a second connecting path that is connected to the circulation path (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 112), wherein the third other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is travelling on the second connecting path and approaching to the circulation path for enter the circulation path (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 113), and wherein the forth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is stopping on the second connecting path in front of the circulation path in order to enter the circulation path (see at least, Fig 1, Vehicle 111). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Fourth Other Vehicle Behavior, 111)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Third Other Vehicle Behavior, 113)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Second Own Vehicle Behavior, 112)] PNG media_image4.png 491 637 media_image4.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Lee and Lim to include execute, when a second specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the second specific condition is not satisfied as taught by Choi in order to analyze the speed and distance of vehicles simultaneously entering an intersection and provide driving guides for preventing accidents (Choi, [0005]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F. 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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. /TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600349
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ASSISTING FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE BASED ON DRIVING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594934
EQUIDISTANT-TEMPORAL AGGREGATION FOR MOVING OBJECT SEGMENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589773
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SENSOR CALIBRATION AT AN ENERGY SUPPLY STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576890
YIELDING SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570323
CROSSWALK HANDLING FOR VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
62%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 156 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