Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/752,556

DETERMINING DEVICE COMPATIBILITY USING TAG DEVICES

Final Rejection §102
Filed
May 24, 2022
Examiner
WEINMANN, RYU-SUNG PETER
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
OA Round
4 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 18 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
63
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 18 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 remain pending in the application along with added new claims 23-24, and claims 7, 14, and 21-22 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every claim objection and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/19/2025. The examiner notes that the term charging refers to the activation of RFID tags and not the charging of batteries possibly present on the electronic devise. The new grounds of rejection presented below are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodchild (US 20220051065 A1, published 2022-02-17), as evidenced by Stack Exchange – Electrical Engineering (“Passive RFID Tag: Unique Identifiers” < https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/16353/passive-rfid-tag-unique-identifiers > Posted online July 5, 2011) and SpotSee (Blog “5 Ingenious Uses of Passive RFID Tags” < https://spotsee.io/blog/passive-rfid-tags-find-innovative-use/?srsltid=AfmBOorTrj5tO2vZtPSEMPvWokXZjitnUXuGw9jrql6xV1VKUVc1H_p5 > Posted online September 25, 2020). Regarding independent claim 1, Goodchild discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1, 4: charging cell 100), comprising: a processor (Figs. 4: processing circuit 404); and a memory (Fig. 4 and ¶[41]: active RFID tag typically includes a memory that can provide detailed information beyond the serial number stored by a passive RFID tag 412.) configured to store code executable by the processor to: broadcast a passive tag device charging signal (¶[38-40] and Fig. 4: broadcasted signal from RFID reader 402 is received by passive RFID tag 412 to wake and provide a response code) to a plurality of tag devices associated with a plurality of peripheral devices to simultaneously charge each said passive device in the plurality of passive tag devices (Fig. 7 and ¶[24]: multiple tag devices simultaneously charged), wherein each said tag device in the plurality of tag devices is coupled to a different respective peripheral device in the plurality of peripheral devices (Fig. 11 and ¶[65]: The examiner interprets mobile device 1100 and wireless charger 1106 as peripheral devices to each other, wherein each mobile device couples to a different respective RFID tag 1104), receive a tag device response signal from each said passive tag device in the plurality of tag devices responsive to the tag device charging signal charging each said respective tag device in the plurality of tag devices (¶[38-40]: signals are exchanged between RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412), wherein: the tag device response signal received from each said respective tag device includes first information data about the respective peripheral device with which it is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: unique identifiers corresponding to a device is inherent in a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, which the examiner interprets as unique information data of the devices. See Stack Exchange and SpotSee), and the first configuration data describes one or more first characteristics of the respective peripheral device to which a respective passive tag is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: See above), and determine whether each said respective peripheral device and the apparatus are compatible with each other based on the one or more first characteristics described in the first configuration data including one or more second characteristics of the apparatus (Fig. 4: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other), wherein, each said passive tag device comprises a Bluetooth passive tag device or a radio frequency (RFID) passive tag device, and the passive tag device charging signal is configured to simultaneously charge each Bluetooth passive tag device or each RFID passive tag device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: passive RFID tag 412 communicating with reader 402 through the exchange of RFID passive tag signals). Regarding claim 2, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to compare the first configuration data of each said respective peripheral device and the second configuration data for the apparatus to determine a match (¶[65]: the examiner interprets the wireless charger detecting a cellular telephone, a smartphone, a multimedia device, etc., as being enabled to match configuration data in order to identify the mobile device as is a common use of RFID technology). Regarding claim 3, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine compatibility of the apparatus and each said respective peripheral device based on the match; and identify each said peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other). Regarding claim 4, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor (Fig. 11: controller 1112) configured to transmit an actuation signal to each compatible device (¶0069: the controller 1112 causes its RFID radio 1116 to transmit an RFID interrogation signal 1122); and the actuation signal is configured to trigger each said compatible device to activate a respective visual cue on each said compatible device (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: after controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a visual cue that the charger and device are compatible). Regarding claim 5, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify each said peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other); and determine a degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each said respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: When controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device, indicating a 0% degree of compatibility. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a 100% degree of compatibility between the charger and device). Regarding claim 6, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the processor (Fig. 11: controller 1112) is further configured to transmit an actuation signal to each said compatible device (Figs. 9 and 10: wireless chargers 802 and electronic devices 852); and the actuation signal is configured to trigger different compatible devices to activate different visual cues on each said different compatible device based on the degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (The examiner interprets the display on the device as applicable for use by each wireless charger 802 and electronic device 852, where the absence of an error display infers a 100% degree of compatibility, and an error display infers 0% degree of compatibility). Regarding independent claim 8, Goodchild discloses a method, comprising: broadcasting, by a processor of an apparatus, a passive tag device charging signal (¶[38-40] and Fig. 4: broadcasted signal from RFID reader 402 is received by passive RFID tag 412 to wake and provide a response code) to a plurality of tag devices associated with a plurality of peripheral devices to simultaneously charge each said passive device in the plurality of passive tag devices (Fig. 7 and ¶[24]: multiple tag devices simultaneously charged), wherein each said passive tag device in the plurality of tag devices is coupled to a different respective peripheral device in the plurality of peripheral devices (Fig. 11 and ¶[65]: The examiner interprets mobile device 1100 and wireless charger 1106 as peripheral devices to each other, wherein each mobile device couples to a different respective RFID tag 1104); and receiving a tag response signal from each said passive tag device in the plurality of tag devices responsive to the tag device charging signal charging each said respective tag device in the plurality of tag devices (¶[38-40]: signals are exchanged between RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412), wherein: the tag device response signal received from each said respective tag device includes first information data about the respective peripheral device with which it is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: unique identifiers corresponding to a device is inherent in a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, which the examiner interprets as unique information data of the devices. See Stack Exchange and SpotSee), and the first information data describes one or more first characteristics of the respective peripheral device to which a respective passive tag is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: See above), and determining whether each said respective peripheral device and the apparatus are compatible with each other based on the one or more first characteristics described in the first information data received from each said respective passive tag device matching second information data describing one or more second characteristics of the apparatus (Fig. 4: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other), wherein: each said passive tag device comprises a Bluetooth passive tag device or a radio frequency (RFID) passive tag device, and the passive tag device charging signal is configured to simultaneously charge each Bluetooth passive tag device or each RFID passive tag device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: passive RFID tag 412 communicating with reader 402 through the exchange of RFID passive tag signals). Regarding claim 9, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising comparing the first configuration data of each said respective peripheral device and the second configuration data for the apparatus to determine a match (¶[65]: the examiner interprets the wireless charger detecting a cellular telephone, a smartphone, a multimedia device, etc., as being enabled to match configuration data in order to identify the mobile device as is a common use of RFID technology). Regarding claim 10, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining compatibility of the apparatus and each said respective peripheral device based on the match; and identify each peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other). Regarding claim 11, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: transmitting an actuation signal to each compatible device (¶0069: the controller 1112 causes its RFID radio 1116 to transmit an RFID interrogation signal 1122), wherein the actuation signal is configured to trigger each said compatible device to activate a respective visual cue on each said compatible device (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: after controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a visual cue that the charger and device are compatible). Regarding claim 12, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: identifying each said peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other); and determining a degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each said respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: When controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device, indicating a 0% degree of compatibility. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a 100% degree of compatibility between the charger and device). Regarding claim 13, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: transmitting an actuation signal to each said compatible device (Figs. 9 and 10: wireless chargers 802 and electronic devices 852), wherein the actuation signal is configured to trigger different compatible devices to activate different visual cues on each said different compatible device based on the degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (The examiner interprets the display on the device as applicable for use by each wireless charger 802 and electronic device 852, where the absence of an error display infers a 100% degree of compatibility, and an error display infers 0% degree of compatibility). Regarding independent claim 15, Goodchild discloses a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage device including code embodied therewith (Fig. 4: processing circuit 404), the code executable by a processor (Figs. 4 and ¶[41]: Active RFID tag typically includes a memory that can provide detailed information beyond the serial number stored by a passive RFID tag 412) to cause the processor to: broadcast passive tag device charging signal from an apparatus to a plurality of tag devices associated with a plurality of peripheral devices (¶[38-40] and Fig. 4: broadcasted signal from RFID reader 402 is received by passive RFID tag 412 to wake and provide a response code), wherein each said tag device in the plurality of tag devices is associated with a different respective peripheral device in the plurality of peripheral devices to simultaneously charge each said passive tag device in the plurality of passive tag devices (Fig. 7 and ¶[24]: multiple tag devices simultaneously charged), and wherein each said passive tag device in the plurality of passive tag devices is coupled to a different respective peripheral device in the plurality of peripheral devices (Fig. 11 and ¶[65]: The examiner interprets mobile device 1100 and wireless charger 1106 as peripheral devices to each other, wherein each mobile device couples to a different respective RFID tag 1104); receive a tag device response signal from each said passive tag device in the plurality of tag devices responsive to the tag device charging signal charging each said respective tag device in the plurality of tag devices (¶[38-40]: signals are exchanged between RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412), wherein the tag device response signal received from each said respective tag device includes first information data about the respective peripheral device with which it is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: unique identifiers corresponding to a device is inherent in a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, which the examiner interprets as unique information data of the devices. See Stack Exchange and SpotSee), and the first information data describes one or more first characteristics of the respective peripheral device to which a respective tag is coupled (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: See above), and determine whether each said respective peripheral device associated with each said respective tag device and the apparatus are compatible with each other based on the one or more first characteristics described in the first information data received from each said respective passive tag device matching second information data describing one or more second characteristics of the apparatus (Fig. 4: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other), wherein: each said passive tag device comprises a Bluetooth passive tag device or a radio frequency (RFID) passive tag device, and the passive tag device charging signal is configured to simultaneously charge each Bluetooth passive tag device or each RFID passive tag device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: passive RFID tag 412 communicating with reader 402 through the exchange of RFID passive tag signals). Regarding claim 16, Goodchild discloses the computer program product of claim 15, wherein the executable code further causes the processor to compare the first configuration data of each said respective peripheral device and the second configuration data for the apparatus to determine a match (¶[65]: the examiner interprets the wireless charger detecting a cellular telephone, a smartphone, a multimedia device, etc., as being enabled to match configuration data in order to identify the mobile device as is a common use of RFID technology). Regarding claim 17, Goodchild discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the executable code further causes the processor to: determine compatibility of the apparatus and each said respective peripheral based on the match; and identify each said peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other). Regarding claim 18, Goodchild discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the executable code the processor (Fig. 11: controller 1112) to transmit an actuation signal to each said compatible device (¶0069: the controller 1112 causes its RFID radio 1116 to transmit an RFID interrogation signal 1122); and the actuation signal is configured to trigger each said compatible device to activate a respective visual cue on each said compatible device (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: after controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a visual cue that the charger and device are compatible). Regarding claim 19, Goodchild discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the executable code further causes the processor is to: identify each said peripheral device that matches the apparatus as a compatible device (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: compatibility in the broadest interpretation includes the compatibility of the RFID reader 402 and passive RFID tag 412 to exchange data with each other); and determine a degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each said respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (Fig. 12 and ¶[29, 64, esp. 70]: When controller 1112 detects response signal 1124 and causes the controller to decline the charging of the mobile device 1100, a display error message is shown on device, indicating a 0% degree of compatibility. The examiner interprets the absence of a display error as a 100% degree of compatibility between the charger and device). Regarding claim 20, Goodchild discloses the computer program product of claim 19, wherein: the executable code further causes the processor (Fig. 11: controller 1112) to transmit an actuation signal to each said compatible device (Figs. 9 and 10: wireless chargers 802 and electronic devices 852); and the actuation signal is configured to trigger different compatible devices to activate different visual cues on each said different compatible device based on the degree of compatibility between the apparatus and each respective peripheral device that matches the apparatus (The examiner interprets the display on the device as applicable for use by each wireless charger 802 and electronic device 852, where the absence of an error display infers a 100% degree of compatibility, and an error display infers 0% degree of compatibility). Regarding claim 23, Goodchild discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit an indicator actuation signal to an indicator on each said peripheral device that is compatible with the apparatus in response to determining that each said peripheral device and the apparatus are compatible with each other (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: passive RFID tag 412 communicating with reader 402 through the exchange of RFID passive tag signals). Regarding claim 24, Goodchild discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting an indicator actuation signal to an indicator on each said peripheral device that is compatible with the apparatus in response to determining that each said peripheral device and the apparatus are compatible with each other (Fig. 4 and ¶[38-40]: passive RFID tag 412 communicating with reader 402 through the exchange of RFID passive tag signals). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below are prior art involved with simultaneous charging of RFID passive tags. Maguire (US 20130181517 A1) Morris (US 20150177330 A1) Ozaki et al. (US 20100222010 A1) Beasley et al. (US 20070072474 A1) THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET. 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, Julian Huffman, can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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. /Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 February 17, 2026 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jun 16, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12556022
CHARGING METHOD AND APPARATUS, VEHICLE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12556014
BATTERY CONTROL DEVICE, BATTERY SYSTEM, POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, AND BATTERY CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545136
VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537337
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12512687
METHOD FOR CHARGING AN ENERGY STORE, MOBILE DEVICE AND CHARGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+10.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 18 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