Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/088,187

CONTROL APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 24, 2025
Priority
Jun 30, 2022 — JP 2022-105878 +1 more
Examiner
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toyota Motor Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
537 granted / 723 resolved
+4.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
66.7%
+26.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 723 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same scope. Claim 1 of the present application recites a control apparatus for a stopped state keeping apparatus whereas Claim 1 of the patent recites a control apparatus for a stopped state holding apparatus, where both apparatuses are performing the same base functions (detecting a manipulated state of the switch mechanism for a predetermined amount of time or longer and subsequently controlling operation irrespective of the detection of the manipulated state). Claim 2 of the present application corresponds to the patented Claim 2, Claim 3 represents an obvious variant of Claim 1 (controlling on the basis of the input when the input ceases before the predetermined period), and Claim 4 corresponds to a combination of patented claims 1 and 2. Each present claim therefore would have been obvious over the cited patented claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While a plurality of prior art of record discloses stopped state keeping apparatuses (US 2004/0090112, US 2016/0339888, US 2017/0137008, US 2018/0339707, US 2021/0155207, US 2006/0225972, US 2004/0113489), none disclose detecting a manipulated state of a stopped state keeping switch mechanism for a predetermined amount of time or longer and subsequently controlling operation irrespective of the detection of the manipulated state. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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. /SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 24, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679452
OPERATION AMOUNT ACQUISITION DEVICE
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679378
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673642
EFFORTLESS READJUSTABLE BRAKING SYSTEM
1y 12m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12662115
Apparatus And Method For Lane Following Assist
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12654684
AUTOMATED DRIVING METHOD PERFORMED BY ARTICULATED VEHICLE
1y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+11.3%)
2y 11m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 723 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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