Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/802,591

ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 13, 2024
Examiner
ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
Art Unit
3661
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
1410 granted / 1518 resolved
+40.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1544
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1518 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting 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 15-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 15 of the present application recites an electronic apparatus, which travels based on map information and an object recognition result, the electronic apparatus comprising: a camera; a communication interface; a driver; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively cause the electronic apparatus to: capture an image while the electronic apparatus travels based on the map information; obtain an object recognition result for the image; transmit, to an external device, information regarding the image according to the object recognition result; receive, from the external device, information regarding a user feedback on the object recognition result to update an object recognition model, wherein the external device displays the obtained image while receiving the user feedback; and control the electronic apparatus such that the electronic apparatus travels according to the received information regarding the user feedback. Claim 1 of patent No. 12,078, 998 discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising: a camera configured to obtain an image; a communication interface; a driver; at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor connected to the at least one memory, and configured to execute the instructions to: obtain, by inputting the image to a first artificial intelligence model, a probability that an object of a first type is in the image, the probability being greater than, equal to, or less than a preset probability; control, based on the probability being greater than or equal to the preset probability, the driver such that the electronic apparatus travels in an area at a predetermined distance or greater away from the object of the first type; transmit, based on the probability being less than the preset probability, data regarding the image to a user terminal through the communication interface; and update, based on a user feedback regarding the image being received from the user terminal through the communication interface, the first artificial intelligence model. Though the prior art disclose update the first artificial intelligence model, it does not specifically disclose the user feedback on the object recognition result to update an object recognition model. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system by updating an object recognition model where the model could be considered as an artificial intelligence model because it would have achieved a desired result for obtaining information. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boncyk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8.218,874) discloses search terms are derived automatically from images captured by a camera equipped cell phone, PDA, or other image capturing device, submitted to a search engine to obtain information of interest, and at least a portion of the resulting information is transmitted back locally to, or nearby, the device that captured the image. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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. /GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 13, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602955
VEHICLE TERMINAL AND CALCULATION SERVER FOR CALCULATING SAFE DRIVING INDEX BASED ON LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595778
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING OPERATING SWING OF VERTICAL SHAFT SUSPENDED HYDROGENERATOR UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594840
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOVERING FROM TORQUE REDUCTION CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594842
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRIC MACHINE PEAK POWER MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589742
Systems and Methods for Adjusting a Driving Path Using Occluded Regions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
93%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+4.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1518 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