Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/083,780

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN DEVICES

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 19, 2022
Examiner
ZECHER, CORDELIA P K
Art Unit
2100
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Mobility Asia Smart Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
253 granted / 509 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
287 currently pending
Career history
796
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 509 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Claims 1 – 17 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faenger, US 20110275358A1. Faenger teaches the invention, comprising: receiving an image related to a first application from a first device, the image being captured from a screen of the first device by a camera that is embedded in or attached to a second device, the second device being a vehicle-mounted system in a vehicle [“A camera is attached to the in-vehicle system” [0046]. “(T)arget device B just captures an image of the screen content as the user sees it” [0047]]; and triggered by the received image from the screen of the first device: searching the second device for a second application [“(T)arget device B may infer or otherwise ascertain what application is most likely displayed on the screen of source device A] [0048]. “For each identified activity, target device B may search for an application that is able to reproduce this activity” [0049], [0056]], and running the second application in the second device, by continuing a running or by re-running of a function executed in the first application corresponding to the received image, after the second application is found in the second device [“Once an application is identified as being able to handle the activity, then the activity is performed by the identified application” [0051]. “As an example of how the system of the invention may be used, the system may enable a user who is writing an email on his mobile phone 202 (FIG. 2) to continue writing the email after he gets into the car by using the in-vehicle system204” [0052]]., wherein the first application and the second application are same applications or are applications of same type [0052]. As per claim 2, Faenger teaches: wherein searching the second device for the second application comprises: extracting information related to the first application from the received image by recognizing the received image [0047]; and searching the second device for the second application on a basis of the extracted information [0048]. As per claim 3, Faenger teaches: wherein the information related to the first application comprises one or more of: a name of the first application, and an identifier of the first application [0055]. As per claim 4, Faenger teaches: wherein the information further comprises content presented on the screen of the first device during running of the first application, and the method further comprises, after the second application is run in the second device, applying, in the second application, the content presented on the screen of the first device during running of the first application [0052]. As per claim 5, Faenger teaches: wherein searching the second device for the second application comprises: performing image matching of the received image with images stored in the second device, to search an application corresponding to the stored matched image as the second application [0047]. As per claim 6, Faenger teaches: the image related to the first application comprises at least one of a screen interface of the first application which is currently running on the first device; a screen interface having the identifier or name of the first application; or a picture having the identifier or name of the first application [0047]. As per claim 7, Faenger teaches: wherein the first device is a mobile terminal [0052]. As per claim 8, Faenger teaches: wherein when the second application is not found in the second device, presenting an indication by a presentation unit of the second device, the indication comprising one or more of following: an option regarding whether to download the second application, a notification regarding that the second application is not found, and an option regarding whether to run an alternative application when the second application is not found [0050]. As per claims 9 – 15, they are directed to the apparatus for performing the method set forth in claims 1 – 8. Claim 17 is directed to the non-transitory machine-readable medium for storing the instructions for claim 1. As such, they are rejected for the same reasons as forth for claims 1 – 7. As per claim 16, it is directed to the device for performing the method set forth in claim 1. As such, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 17 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. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Thomas C Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3667. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00-3:30. 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 John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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. /THOMAS C LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2022
Application Filed
May 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583466
VEHICLE CONTROL MODULES INCLUDING CONTAINERIZED ORCHESTRATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR MIXED CRITICALITY SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578751
DATA PROCESSING CIRCUITRY AND METHOD, AND SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561162
AUTOMATED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12536291
PLATFORM BOOT PATH FAULT DETECTION ISOLATION AND REMEDIATION PROTOCOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12393641
METHODS FOR UTILIZING SOLVER HARDWARE FOR SOLVING PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 19, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+25.8%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 509 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