Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 13, 2026
Application No. 18/635,234

Application and Service Context Aware Cell Selection

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Priority
Aug 26, 2021 — continuation of 11/665,638 +1 more
Examiner
MAGLOIRE, ELISABETH BENOIT
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
725 granted / 809 resolved
+31.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
827
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 809 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 11 May 2026, having claims 1-20. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. 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 Arguments 3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejection based on Jang is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection (double patenting) is made. Double Patenting 4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,665,638 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale: Claims 1, 8, and 15 are anticipated by claims 1 and 3, claims 8 and 10, and claims 15 and 17 of the Patent. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are anticipated by claims 4, 12, and 18 of the Patent. Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 1-20 are would be allowable upon filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection. Conclusion 6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. 7. 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. 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET. 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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. /ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
May 11, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12696351
MULTICAST SERVICE RECEIVING METHOD, MULTICAST SERVICE CONFIGURATION METHOD, TERMINAL, AND NETWORK SIDE DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12666480
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR OPERATING LINK AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12666481
CONTROLLING EXECUTION OF CONDITIONAL MOBILITY PROCEDURES IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12659934
TRANSMISSION METHOD FOR TRIGGER SIGNALING
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12659816
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING SYNCHRONIZATION IN COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 7m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 809 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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