Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 20, 2026
Application No. 18/069,098

SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND METHODS TO IMPROVE DEVICE CONNECTIVITY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
JEAN, FRANTZ B
Art Unit
2454
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
753 granted / 837 resolved
+32.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
854
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§103
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 837 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 is a first office action in response to the instant application for letters patent filed on 20 December 2022. Claims 1-25 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. hereinafter Lauer Pub Number 20240283725 and Wouhaybi et al. hereinafter Wouhaybi Pub Number 20230016946. As per claim 1, Lauer teaches a system to improve device connectivity (see abstract describing systems and methods that provide connectivity to client electronic devices in a wireless communication network), the system comprising: an electronic device to broadcast a message including a uniform resource indicator (URI), the URI corresponding to the electronic device (see par 0009, an HTTP request from an electronic device comprising a URI); and an endpoint device to: after obtaining the message, launch a user interface to display a request for authorization to connect to the electronic device (see par 0044, the client device 210 may communicate to the controller 220 a request to connect to the wireless network. Association with the wireless network may operate via one or more wireless local area network (WLAN) communication protocols, such as one or more IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) protocols (e.g., 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11ac, etc.). In some embodiments, connecting the wireless network may require entry of a password and/or other authorization from the client device 210 (e.g., a WPA2-secured network). Lauer teaches access websites services (see fig 2 element 260). Lauer also discusses “obtained HTTP request to proceed to a destination indicated by the URI (see par 0011). However, Lauer does not discuss after obtaining the authorization, retrieve an instance of a container based on the URI; and execute a service with the container based on data obtained from the electronic device. Wouhaybi discloses an application or a direct user request that can request an analytics container (e.g. an analytics container, microservice, etc .., that can be instantiated and implemented by the analytics manager 136) with appropriate configurations and optimizations for the requested task (see par 0073). (Emphasis added: It must be noted that although Wouhaybi does not elaborate about URI, a container and URI are interrelated. The container is a logical organizer for files or data while the URI is used to address the container itself. A URI for a container usually includes the storage account, the container name, and sometimes authentication tokens or version information. Therefore, it would be obvious to a skill artisan before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to combine Wouhaybi’s container to Lauer’s system to facilitate efficiency while providing strong isolation capabilities. As per claim 2, Lauer-Wouhaybi does not discuss the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device broadcasts the message upon bootup of the electronic device (it’s implicit and is part of their system schema; a message can be programmed to be sent any time). As per claim 3, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, and the system further including a second electronic device to: capture an image of a code associated with the first electronic device; determine that the code is representative of the URI; trigger an application based on the URI to discover the endpoint device; and transmit the URI to the endpoint device (see Wouhaybi, par 0073; all this steps are part of the container service and function). As per claim 4, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device broadcasts the message after obtaining an input signal representative of a manual pairing operation (this step is implicit in both Lauer-Wouhaybi). As per claim 5, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the endpoint device: captures an image of a code associated with the electronic device; determines that the code is representative of the URI; and generates the user interface based on the URI (see Wouhaybi, par 0073; all these steps are part of the container service and function). As per claim 8, it is an apparatus of the system claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. furthermore, Lauer teaches at least one memory; machine readable instructions; and processor circuitry (see Lauer par 0036, processor, memory, and instructions). As per claim 9, Lauer teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: launches a user interface to display a notification representative of a request for authorization to connect to the electronic device; and obtains an authorization via the user interface to connect to the electronic device (see Lauer par 0039, device authorization). As per claim 10, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains an image of a code associated with the electronic device; and identifies the URI based on the code (see Lauer fig 42, element 4232, coded instructions). As per claim 11, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the code is a quick response code (see Lauer fig 42, element 4232, the response can be varied). As per claim 12, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains data from a near-field communication device associated with the electronic device (see Wouhaybi par 0138 which can be near-field as well); and identifies the URI based on the data (see Lauer par 0011). As per claim 13, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains data from a radiofrequency identification tag associated with the electronic device (see Wouhaybi par 0138); and identifies the URI based on the data (see Lauer par 0011). As per claim 14, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is a first endpoint device, and the processor circuitry: obtains a request to connect the electronic device to the first endpoint device and a second endpoint device; establishes a mesh network including the first endpoint device and the second endpoint device; and causes transmission of data from the electronic device to the second endpoint device via the mesh network (see Wouhaybi fig 12, 14; par 0141-0142)). As per claim 15, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry instantiates the container to execute a machine-learning model on the workload (see Wouhaybi fig 4, elements 420 and 470). As per claim 16, Lauer-Wouhaybi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, and the processor circuitry: obtains first data from the first electronic device and second data from a second electronic device; selects at least one of a first portion of the first data or a second portion of the second data; and executes the workload based on the at least one of the first portion or the second portion (Wouhaybi, see fig 1 and 4). As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of the system claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 18-25, they have already been discussed in claims 9-16 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 6-7 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZ B JEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F. 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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached at 5712723949. 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. /FRANTZ B JEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598235
METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING CROSS-RESOURCE EVENT NOTIFICATION, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579303
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580912
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING A MESSAGE IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546820
TEST MODE CONTROL CIRCUIT, SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS AND SYSTEM, AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545193
VEHICLE-MOUNTED CAMERA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 837 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