Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/470,031

Low Power Data Buffering for Maintaining a Bluetooth Connection

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner
AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A
Art Unit
2649
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
746 granted / 931 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
956
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 931 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 . 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. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-12, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (Pub. No.: US 2016/0124495 A1) and further in view of Hwang (Pub. No.: US 2013/0110521 A1) and Medapalli (Pub. No.: US 2021/0083715 A1). With respect to claims 1, 11, 20: KIM discloses a first wireless device comprising circuitry configured to perform operations comprising: receiving data from a second wireless equipment over a short-range connection (fig. 7, items 710 and 720 discloses two electronic devices communicating with each other via short range), wherein the data is received when an application processor of the first wireless device is in a lower power state (parag. 0091 discloses different power state of processor); KIM does not explicitly disclose buffering the data in a buffer while the application processor of the first UE is in the lower power state; and transferring buffered data from the buffer to the application processor after the application processor exits the lower power state and enters an active state; generic attribute profile indication and a second power state wherein the first power state is lower power state than the second power state. Hwang discloses buffering the data in a buffer while the application processor of the first UE is in the lower power state and transferring buffered data from the buffer to the application processor after the application processor exits the lower power state and enters an active state (parag. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hwang into the teaching of KIM in order to thereby reducing power. Medapalli discloses generic attribute profile indication and a second power state wherein the first power state is lower power state than the second power state (parag. 0020, 0066, 0077-0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Medapalli into the teaching of KIM in view of Hwang in order to save power. With respect to claims 2, 12, 21: Hwang discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the application processor is triggered to exit the lower power state to perform a background application refresh (parag. 0006 and 0009-0010 discloses transition out of low power mode to do other operation). With respect to claims 7, 17, 22: KIM discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the buffer is implemented in firmware (parag. 0080-0081). With respect to claims 8, 18, 23: KIM discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the application processor is triggered to exit the lower power state based on a trigger that is unrelated to the short-range connection (parag. 0044 and 0133). With respect to claims 9, 19, 24: KIM discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the application processor is triggered to exit the lower power state based on a type of data received from the second UE (parag. 0133-0137). Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (Pub. No.: US 2016/0124495 A1), Hwang (Pub. No.: US 2013/0110521 A1), Medapalli (Pub. No.: US 2021/0083715 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Henderson (Pub. No.: US 2014/0304566 A1). With respect to claim 25-29: The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; KIM, Hwang and Medapallo do not explicitly disclose the processor configured to disconnect the short-range connection with the second wireless device after the application processor exits the second power state and enters the first power state. Henderson discloses processor configured to disconnect the short-range connection with the second wireless device after the application processor exits the second power state and enters the first power state (parag. 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Henderson into the teaching of KIM in view of Hwang and Medapallo in order to save power. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 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. 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 AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm, EST. 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, YUWEN PAN can be reached at (571)-272-7855. 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. /AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597961
CIRCUIT REDUNDANCY AND WEAR BALANCING TO IMPROVE CIRCUIT LIFETIME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587876
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF NETWORK EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587137
Receiver Circuit
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586924
Antenna System Architecture with Calibration Feedback Routing for Per Element Calibration with Digital Beamformer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587224
RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNAL SPLITTING WITH DIFFERENTIAL FILTER AND LOW NOISE AMPLIFIERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 931 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