Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/114,400

CLIENT DEVICE FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION FROM AN OPTICAL CODE ASSOCIATED WITH A SENSING DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2023
Examiner
MIKELS, MATTHEW
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Arris Enterprises LLC
OA Round
6 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1044 granted / 1292 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1324
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1292 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s response and amendment dated 10/3/25 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKirdy (US 2021/0350923, previously cited) in view of Kwan (US 2009/0140051).1 Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, McKirdy teaches a client device, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium associated with a user for receiving information associated with an optical code, the client device comprising: a memory (paragraph 0130); and a processor configured to execute one or more instructions stored on the memory to cause the client device to (paragraph 0130): activate an optical device to cause the optical device to initiate a scan of the optical code (paragraph 0022) associated with a sensing device that is associated with the user (paragraph 0023); receive, from the optical device, information associated with the optical code provided or generated by the sensing device, wherein the optical code represents at least data associated with the user of the sensing device as sensed from the sensing device (paragraph 0023, see also paragraph 0065); convert the information to a format for display on a display device, wherein the converting is based on one or more factors comprising a type of optical code (paragraph 0067); and display the converted information at the display device (paragraph 0060). McKirdy does not explicitly teach sending an instruction to an optical device to perform a scan of the optical code associated with a sensing device that is associated with a user. Kwan teaches sending an instruction to an optical device to perform a scan of the optical code associated with a sensing device that is associated with a user (paragraph 0010: sending updates to the stored instructions). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of McKirdy and Kwan, because such a combination aids in improving the operation of the optical device (paragraph 0010 of Kwan). Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, McKirdy further teaches the client device comprises the optical device, and wherein the optical device comprises a camera (paragraph 0025). Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, McKirkdy further teaches displaying the converted information at the display device comprises displaying the converted information at a size larger than that provided at the sensing device (paragraph 0060). Regarding claims 4 and 11, McKirdy further teaches the display device is a remote display device (paragraph 0060). Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, McKirdy further teaches the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to further cause the client device to: send the converted information to a network resource so as to cause the network resource to store the converted information at the network resource accessible by one or more other client devices (paragraph 0038). Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, McKirdy further teaches the optical code is associated with biometric data associated with the user of the sensing device (paragraph 0031). Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, McKirdy further teaches the client device comprises a remote control (paragraph 0030). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. New reference Kwan has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above. 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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:00 AM ET - 4:30 PM ET, Friday 7:00 AM ET - 11:00 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.2 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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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. /MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 1 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures. 2 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2023
Application Filed
May 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 16, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 03, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597011
System and method to dynamically evaluate patterns in smart card operations
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591754
SMART CONNECTED FILM AND PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585908
VISUAL MARKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573272
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ATM SESSION CACHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572767
Method for processing data from one- or two-dimensional code, and corresponding devices and program
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1292 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