Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/382,666

MOBILE INDIVIDUAL SECURE COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Examiner
BODDIE, WILLIAM
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Ncyfr LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
47%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 193 resolved
-36.1% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
221
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
62.9%
+22.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 193 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford et al. (10366691) in view of Moser et al. (US 2017/0149943), Gong et al. (US 20210319782), Aoyanagi (JP 2004297256) and Walder et al. (US 20130048341). Claims 1, 3 and 5, Rochford discloses a mobile confidential and secure communication environment (col. 5, lines 65-67), comprising: a headset configured to be worn by a user (Fig. 5B); eyewear (505, Fig. 5B) coupled to the headset, wherein the eyewear comprises a display that is configured to display images for viewing by the user while preventing such imagery to be viewed by others; headphones (530, Fig. 5B) coupled to the headset and configured to provide audio to the user while preventing sounds from being overheard by other; a microphone (520, Fig. 5B) configured to receive speech spoken by the user; a secure communication interface configured to provide a secure communication link to a mobile device or desktop computer for communicating sound data to the headphones and sound data from the mouthpiece and communicating image data to the eyewear (Figs. 1-3); and a control unit coupled to the eyewear, headphones, mouthpiece and secure communication interface, wherein the control unit is configured to control operations of the eyewear, headphones and mouthpiece to enable secure communications during a secure communication session (Figs. 1-3). Rochford does not but Moser teaches a mouthpiece ([0065], Figs. 1, 4, 6) including a microphone (1270, Fig. 4) to receive speed spoken by the user while preventing such speech from being over heard by others ([0021] In view of the foregoing, it is an object of this disclosure to describe an apparatus for maintaining the privacy and clarity of communications over devices and sounds of musical instruments or voices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Moser’s mouthpiece in the invention of Fisher to provide private and clear communications to a user. The modified Rochford does not but Gong discloses a proximity sensor configured to detect when the headset/eyewear/headphone is positioned on the head of the user and provide a signal to the control unit when the headset/eyewear/headphone is removed from the head of the user ([0226] – [0229], [0039], [0279], [0320]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gong’s proximity sensor in the invention of the modified Rochford to improve the capabilities of Rochford’s system. The modified Rochford does not but Aoyanagi discloses disconnecting a communication link in response to a headset is removed from the head of a user (Abstract, [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Aoyanagi’s disclosure in the invention of the modified Rochford to disconnect the secure communication link so power can be saved and communication can be secured. The modified Rochford does not disclose a shielded transmission cable incorporating a ferrite choke configured to attenuate radio-frequency emissions and electromagnetic interference generated during the secure communication session. However, it is well known in the art to use a shielded transmission cable incorporating a ferrite choke configured to attenuate radio-frequency emissions and electromagnetic interference generated during a secure communication session as shown by Walder ([0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of application use a shielded transmission cable incorporating a ferrite choke configured to attenuate radio-frequency emissions and electromagnetic interference generated during a secure communication session in the invention of the modified Rochford so that interference can be eliminated. Claim 4, the modified Rochford does not explicitly discloses placing the proximity sensor the mouthpiece. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the proximity sensor can be placed anywhere in the headset including in the mouthpiece since the mouthpiece is included in the headset. The mouthpiece is removed from the user’s head when headset is removed. Claim 6, The modified Rochford discloses the control unit is configured to authenticate the user using a biometric authentication method prior to enabling commencement of the secure communication session (Gong, Abstract, [0225], Fig. 9). Claim 8, the modified Rochford discloses the control unit comprises: a transceiver configured to send and receive audio and visual communications via one of a wireless or wired communication link; a memory; and a microcontroller unit coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured with processor-executable instructions stored in the memory to perform operations comprising: managing data communications with the eyewear, headphones, and mouthpiece (Rochford, Figs. 2-3); determining based on signals from the one or more proximity sensors whether the headphones, eyewear and mouthpiece are being worn by the user; enabling communications via the transceiver, sending audio to the headphones, sending video to the eyewear, and receiving sound from the mouthpiece in response to determining that the headphones, eyewear and mouthpiece are being worn by the user; and disable communications via the transceiver, preventing sending audio to the headphones, preventing sending video to the eyewear and preventing receiving sound from the mouthpiece in response to determining that any one of the headphones, eyewear and mouthpiece are not being worn by the user (Gong, [0226] – [0229]). The modified Rochford does not explicitly disclose encrypting and decrypting audio and visual signals. However, it is well known in the art to encrypt and decrypt audio and visual signals for security purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrypt received encrypted audio and visual data for presentation on the headphones and eyewear, respectively; and encrypt speech sounds received from the microphone for secure transmission via the transceiver in the invention of the modified Rochford for security purposes. Claim 9, the modified Rochford disclose connecting the headset system to a mobile or desktop device vias various wireless connections such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular (Rochford, col. 7, lines 6-21). A wireless connection such as Bluetooth has a capability of terminating the communication between the headset system and the mobile or desktop device when the distance between the headset system and the mobile or desktop device exceeds a threshold distance. 5. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford et al. (US 10366691) in view of Moser et al. (US 2017/0149943), of Gong et al. (US 20210319782), Aoyanagi (JP 2004297256) and Walder et al. (US 20130048341) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 8902315). Claim 7, the modified Rochford discloses the control unit is positioned within the headphones (col.9, lines 15-20). The modified Rochford does not but Fisher disclose the eyewear is separable from the headphones; the headphones include slots into which temples of the eyewear can fit when both are worn by a user; the slots include electrical contacts coupled to circuitry within the headphones; and the temples of the eyewear include electrical contacts configured to make electrical connections with the electrical contacts in the slot when the temples are positioned in the slots (Figs. 6 – 10, 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fisher’s disclosures in the invention of the modified Rochford so that the eyewear can be separated from the headset when it is needed. 6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DeCicco et al. ( US 20160263768) discloses a shielded transmission cable incorporating a ferrite choke configured to attenuate radio-frequency emissions and electromagnetic interference ([0072]). 7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. 8. 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. 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-7767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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, Ke Xiao can be reached on (571) 272-7776. 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. /DOON Y CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 06, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 01, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589653
VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573336
ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH BETTER RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567373
PIXEL CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557387
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542116
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
26%
Grant Probability
47%
With Interview (+21.0%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 193 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