Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 16/866,223

SERVICES AND APPLICATIONS FOR A COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 04, 2020
Examiner
LI, YONGHONG
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mobile Maven LLC
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
146 granted / 192 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
230
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 192 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 09/04/2025 has been entered. Newly added claim 65 is pending in the application. The amendment filed 09/04/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the corresponding notification includes an estimated elapsed time for bringing geographically together the second user and the at least second geographical location” in claim 65. In the specification, there is no information support the limitation “the corresponding notification includes an estimated elapsed time for bringing geographically together the second user and the at least second geographical location”. The closest disclosure is “a user may be provided with periodic information regarding another user's or object's status, e.g., user/object's geographic location, the temperature of the user/object, a movement of the user/object, a configuration of user/object35 (e.g., computer network configuration), etc.” (see specification page 87 or publication US 2020/0333426 paragraph [0497] lines 5-10 from bottom), which could support the limitation “the second user and the at least second geographical location”, but not “the corresponding notification includes an estimated elapsed time for bringing geographically together the second user and the at least second geographical location”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 65 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following claimed language is not defined in the applicant’s specification: “the corresponding notification includes an estimated elapsed time for bringing geographically together the second user and the at least second geographical location” in claim 65 lines 1-3. 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. Claim 65 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. Claim 65 recites the limitations: 1) "The method of Claim 65" in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear which claim the claim 65 depends on. 2) “the second user” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “second user” is not defined or mentioned. 3) “the at least second geographical location” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “at least second geographical location” is not defined or mentioned. Appropriate clarifications are required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 61-64 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 61-64 are allowable over the prior art of record due to the amendment of 09/04/2025. The closest prior art of record is represented by Hall et al. (US 6,026,375, hereafter Hall), Blackhurst et al. (US 2011/0191184, hereafter Blackhurst), Cameron et al. (US5,592,378, hereafter Cameron), DeLOrme et al. (US5,948,040, hereafter DeLOrme), and Dupray (US 2007/0287473, hereafter Dupray). Regarding independent claim 61, same as detailed in the “Notice of Allowance” Office Action filed 06/04/2025, Hall (‘375), Blackhurst (‘184), Cameron (‘378), DeLOrme (‘040), and Dupray (‘473), either alone or in combination, do not disclose (see words with underlines) wherein while the association is in effect, no notification for the instance is provided to another user having one of mobile units; wherein the electronically providing includes preferring the user, over another user having another one of the mobile units, for the instance, the preferring dependent on data indicative of one or more inputs, or lack thereof, by the user; wherein the data is used as corresponding responses to each of one or more communications to the user for determining whether the user intends to proceed to a location for a previous instance of the product or service where a previous association for the previous instance and the user was provided by a previous performance of the electronically providing; In that each of dependent claims 62-64 depends ultimately from allowable, independent claim 61, each of dependent claims 62-64 is allowable for, at least, the reasons for which independent claim 61 is allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm. 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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. /YONGHONG LI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2020
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 01, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 31, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 07, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 15, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
May 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584993
High Resolution 4-D Millimeter-Wave Imaging Radar
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578424
APPARATUS FOR DRIVER ASSISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571904
Tailoring Sensor Emission Power to Map, Vehicle State, and Environment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566262
VEHICLE ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A RADAR SENSOR AND A GRADIENT-INDEX LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560679
CONFIGURABLE RADAR TILE ARCHITECTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 192 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