Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 19/222,466

DRIVING CONTROL SYSTEM, DRIVING CONTROL METHOD, AND RELATED APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 29, 2025
Priority
Nov 30, 2022 — continuation of PCTCN2022135286
Examiner
TO, TUAN C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Shenzhen Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
864 granted / 1005 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1017
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.4%
+16.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1005 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (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. Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 6,109,239 A). Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a vehicle drive power control apparatus, comprising: a first control unit (2), a second control unit (3) (see Fig. 1), detection mean (6) is comprises of a position sensor that includes a first throttle opening detection means (TPS1) (61), and a second throttle opening detection means (TPS2) (62), wherein the position sensor is connected to the first control unit (2) through the (TPS1) (61), and is connected to the second control unit (3) through the (TPS2) (62) (see Fig. 3; column 7, lines 32-43). Regarding claims 2, and 10, Watanabe teaches a first position signal circuit, a first ground signal circuit, one end of the first position signal circuit connected to the position sensor, and the other end is connected to a first signal collection end of the first electronic control unit, and one end of the first ground signal circuit is connected to the position sensor and the other end is connected to a first ground end of the first electronic control unit (see Fig. 1, and Fig. 3). Regarding claim 15, Watanabe teaches that the vehicle drive power control apparatus comprises: two position sensors (see Fig. 1; throttle opening detection means 5, and 6); two first signal transmission circuits; and two second signal transmission circuits (see Fig. 1; the connections from the opening detection means to both first control unit and the second control unit), wherein the two position sensors are connected to the first electronic control unit through the two first signal transmission circuits respectively. Regarding claim 16, Watanabe teaches that the throttle opening detecting means (6), the first connection, and the second connection are integrated on the same body (see column 5, lines 36-43). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 6,109,239 A). Watanabe discloses a vehicle drive power control apparatus in which a communication mean of a second control unit performs information communication between a first control unit and the second control unit, and a communication failure decision means decides a failure of the communication means, and the system switches to a backup method to continue operating safely using redundant sensors (see column 2, lines 18-45; It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle drive power control apparatus as taught by Watanabe to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of cross-checking so that preventing a single sensor error from causing dangerous, un-commanded throttle movements. Citation of Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-20220332331-A1, US-6899080-B2, US-6047679-A, US-20140163792-A1, and NPL. Allowable Subject Matter The U.S. patent No. 6,109,239 A by Watanabe is the most relevant prior art of record. However, Watanabe fails to disclose or even suggest the limitations recited in claims 3, and 11. Claims 3-9, and 11-14 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. Conclusions Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011. 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). /TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705648
Systems and Methods for Automated Trade-In With Limited Human Interaction
2y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12699405
CONTROL SYSTEM, MOBILE OBJECT, AND CONTROL METHOD
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691849
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRAILER MONITORING
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12687399
RANKING VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686334
BACKING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND VEHICLE
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 10m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1005 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