Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/033,339

TRAIN CONTROL METHOD, STORAGE MEDIUM, ON-BOARD CONTROLLER, AND TRAIN

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 21, 2025
Examiner
TRAN, LONG T
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BYD Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1114 granted / 1343 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1371
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1343 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 . Claims 1 – 18 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 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. Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 9, and 10 contain the phrase “a correspondence between a failure type and a control strategy” in which a previous allusion to the “target control strategy” and “target failure type” is made, which according to the Applicant’s specification, is in reference to the target control strategy and failure type. The claimed should be amended to recite -- a correspondence between the target failure type and the target control strategy -- for clarity. Claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 18 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim. 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 – 2, 9 – 11, 18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US 2014/0094998). Regarding Claim 1: Cooper et al. teaches a method for controlling a train (31), comprising: detecting whether a communication failure (paragraph 0324) occurs to a target train (3902); in response to detecting that the communication failure occurs to the target train, determining a target failure type (paragraph 0324, based on interruption vs broken communication, and length of time) of the communication failure; determining a target control strategy (Fig 46, via autonomous or remote control, see also paragraph 0259) of the target train according to the target failure type and a correspondence between a failure type and a control strategy; and controlling traveling of the target train according to the target control strategy (Figs 44 – 46, paragraphs 0324 – 0334, and via 4420). Regarding Claim 2: Cooper et al. teaches wherein the determining the target control strategy of the target train according to the target failure type and the correspondence between a failure type and a control strategy comprises: in response to that the target failure type indicates that a communication between the target train and an object controller is interrupted, a communication between the target train and an automatic train supervision system is normal, and a communication between the automatic train supervision system and the object controller is normal, determining that the target control strategy of the target train is a remote control strategy, the remote control strategy indicating that the traveling of the target train is controlled according to a remote control instruction delivered by the automatic train supervision system; or in response to that the target failure type indicates that a communication between the target train and an object controller is interrupted and a communication between the target train and an automatic train supervision system is interrupted, or the target failure type indicates that the communication between the target train and the object controller is interrupted and the communication between the automatic train supervision system and the object controller is interrupted, determining that the target control strategy of the target train is an autonomous control strategy, the autonomous control strategy indicating that the traveling of the target train is controlled according to a preset traveling plan (paragraph 0259). Regarding Claim 9: See rejection of Claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 10: See rejection of Claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 11: See rejection of Claim 2 above. Regarding Claim 18: See rejection of Claim 1 above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 – 8, 12 – 17 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00. 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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. /LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 21, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601315
CARBURETED ENGINE HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE FUEL TO AIR RATIO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600407
STEERING CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600405
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRAM, AND VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594989
COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR COMPENSATING TRAILER SWAY OF A VEHICLE TRAILER OF A TOWING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594936
VEHICLE CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1343 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