Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/230,695

MARINE INPUT DEVICE SATURATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 06, 2025
Priority
Jun 11, 2024 — EU 24181327.8
Examiner
PAIGE, TYLER D
Art Unit
3661
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Volvo Group
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allowance Rate
1180 granted / 1292 resolved
+39.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1316
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1292 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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 06/06/2025. The applicant submits an Information Disclosure Statement dated 06/06/2025. The applicant does not make a claim to Domestic priority. The applicant makes a claim to Foreign priority to an application filed on 06/11/2024. 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, 2, 4, 6 – 10, 13, 14, 16, and 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. The claims contain the feature of “saturation” without defining the scope of the feature. Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 18 contain the feature in various forms of “saturation control” with defining how the operation is function is performed. Claims 4, 8 contain the feature of “saturation event”, claims 6, 7 contains “saturation profiles”, and claim 7 contains “saturation limit”. The claims do not identify with particularity what data constitutes saturation or when it occurs. The specification mentions the term saturation 130 times and paragraphs 15, 56, 61, 62, 65, and 67 explain the concept of saturation as it relates the joystick. However, the claims and specification doesn’t identify the thresholds for filtering the signal under varying conditions and how or what data is collected to correlate a dynamic event with input signals from the joystick. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what sensor are collecting data to associate with a joystick input. Claim 3 is 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 claim contains the feature of “specific control characteristics” without defining what those features are. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know when the adaptation occurs. Claim 11 is 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 claim does not identify what is “modified” other than a change of programming, but doesn’t identify with respect to claim 3 what those modification situation constitute. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst). 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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. /TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705936
DATA RETENTION USING NEARBY RESOURCES
2y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12686274
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SWITCH FOR A VEHICLE AND A METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12682692
ASSET SIGNAL MONITORING ENGINE FOR A VIRTUAL FLEET AND ASSET MODELING PLATFORM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12682704
Automatic Event Annotation
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676032
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR VEHICLE
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.4%)
1y 10m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1292 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