Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 19/203,254

VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 09, 2025
Priority
Jun 06, 2024 — JP 2024-092514
Examiner
GILBERTSON, SHAYNE M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
SUBARU Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
137 granted / 181 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
200
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 181 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-092514, filed on 06/06/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 1 a first position data obtainer configured to a first determiner configured to Claim 2 a communicator configured to transmit Claim 4 a second position data obtainer configured to a second determiner configured to Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The first position data obtainer, the second position data obtainer, the first determiner are a processor, and the second determiner are a processor. The communicator is a wireless communication module. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-5 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. The term “similar” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “current position” is rendered indefinite, it is unclear how “similarity” for a current position is determined. Claims 2-3 are rejected for depending on claim 1 The term “similar” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “current position” is rendered indefinite, it is unclear how “similarity” for a current position is determined. The term “similar” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “current position” is rendered indefinite, it is unclear how “similarity” for a current position is determined. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CN 116228376 A is directed at determining when a current position matches a preset energy supply station (historical position) and obtaining the historical energy supply data of the user [see Figure 2]. JP 2007272489 A is directed at determining whether a vehicles position matches a position at the time of power off [see Paragraph 0008]. US 20120041623 A1 is directed at determining whether a vehicles position matches a previous charging location [see Paragraph 0036]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST. 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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. /SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12699399
METHOD FOR AREA DIVIDING IN MAP FOR MOBILE ROBOT, MOBILE ROBOT AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12698010
METHODS AND MOBILITY APPARATUS FOR PREDICTING AGENT BEHAVIOR FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12679341
VEHICLE FOR PERFORMING MINIMAL RISK MANEUVER AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12667051
PERFORMANCE BASED AGRICULTURAL MACHINE SPEED CONTROL
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12654783
VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 3m 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
76%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 10m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 181 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