Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/742,495

ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Examiner
AZAD, ABUL K
Art Unit
2656
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 781 resolved
+23.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 action is in response to the communication filed on June 13, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of acquiring audio signals. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of acquiring audio signals. The claim is drawn to process/apparatus (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’. The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This acquiring audio signals is similar to displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recites the result (acquiring audio signals, from audio sources, by separating, by combining, and by removing), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”). The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “acquiring audio signals, from audio sources, by separating, by combining, and by removing”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using apparatus/processor as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - -apparatus/processor- -“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”). Accordingly, claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic apparatus/processor. The claim amounts to no more than acquiring audio signals. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing processor-based acquiring audio signals, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using processor/apparatus well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of acquiring audio signals, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as down sampling, bandwidth higher than or equal to the preset frequency, bandwidth below the preset frequency, a preset pattern being identified, and a value representing similarity between a shape; even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20, are ineligible. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cahill et al. (US 2017/0186442) discloses, audio signal processing in noisy environments. Gong et al. (US 12,470,868) discloses, signal processing methods, apparatus and electronic device. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300. Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window). Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). February 19, 2026 /ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603098
AUTOMATIC GAIN CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VOICE INTERACTION SYSTEM, AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592236
VOICE INTERACTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586582
APPARATUS PERFORMING BASED ON VOICE RECOGNITION AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586587
METHOD FOR ANALYZING USER UTTERANCE BASED ON UTTERANCE CACHE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE SUPPORTING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573399
DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 781 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