Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/697,750

DATA OFFLOADING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Priority
Oct 29, 2021 — CN 202111275394.8 +1 more
Examiner
CHANG, JUNGWON
Art Unit
2454
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
ZTE Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
724 granted / 838 resolved
+28.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 838 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 08/25/2026. Claims 2-3 have been canceled. Independent claims 1 and 7 have been amended. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) was invoked in the previous Office action mailed on May 29, 2026. However, the Applicant’s response filed on August 25, 2026, did not amend the claims to address the previously identified 112(f) issue. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 are allowed. Claim 7 is allowable if the claim is amended to address the issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection module, configured to detect”, and “a selection module, configured to select”, “a distribution module, configured to distribute”, and “a sending module, configured to send” in claim 7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Applicant's arguments filed on 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUNGWON CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3960. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM. 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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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. /JUNGWON CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 September 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 02, 2024
Application Filed
May 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 25, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12744728
PROACTIVE BYPASS SELECTION BASED ON ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF TRACEROUTES
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12745261
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL IN WIRELESS BACKHAUL SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12745270
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR DEVICE-PROVISIONING IN WIRELESS NETWORK, AND OPERATING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12719823
Methods, Systems, and Media for Identifying and Presenting Video Objects Linked to a Source Video
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12712829
PAGE FAULT SUPPORT FOR VIRTUAL MACHINE NETWORK ACCELERATORS
3y 9m to grant Granted Aug 18, 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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.7%)
2y 10m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 838 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