Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/826,795

COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 06, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, PHIL K
Art Unit
2176
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
442 granted / 537 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
556
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 537 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-9 are pending. 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 . Notification of invoking - 35 USC § 112(f) 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. Claims 1 – 9 are invoking 112(f) interpretation for reciting limitations such as “a first communication apparatus”, “a second communication apparatus”, “a communication unit”, “a control unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” and “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to receive, transmit, switch” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-9 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification paragraphs 19-24 and figures 1-3 for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Thus, the above invoking 112(f) terms “a first communication apparatus”, “a second communication apparatus”, “a communication unit”, “a control unit” will be interpreted according to the structure definition provided in paragraphs 19-24 and figures 1-3. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 20160132092 A1) and in view of Pannell (US Patent 11249541 B1). Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses a communication system including a first communication apparatus [abstract: external apparatus] and a second communication apparatus [abstract: display apparatus], wherein the first communication apparatus includes, a communication unit configured to transmit request information for requesting to switch a Wake On Lan (WOL) function to an enabled state or a disabled state and an activation packet to the second communication apparatus based on instruction information set by a user [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0011: The controller, in response to a network setting being performed by a user, may turn on the WOL function, and in response to a network setting not being performed by a user, turn off the WOL function][0011—19], wherein the second communication apparatus includes, a communication unit configured to receive the request information and the activation packet from the first communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0067: If a power-on command is received from an external apparatus (for example, a smart phone, etc.) remotely through the communicator 210 or a power-on command is received through a remote controller, for example, and from the input unit 280 while a standby mode is maintained, the controller 290 may convert the mode of the display apparatus 200 from the standby mode to an operation mode][0011-0019], and a control unit configured to switch the WOL function to the enabled state or the disabled state based on the request information received from the first communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function and a controller configured to determine whether the WOL function is turned either on or off according to a network setting state][0011-0019], and wherein, in a case where the activation packet is received when an operation state of the second communication apparatus is a power saving state and the WOL function is enabled, the control unit performs processing for activating the second communication apparatus from the power saving state [0067: If a power-on command is received from an external apparatus (for example, a smart phone, etc.) remotely through the communicator 210 or a power-on command is received through a remote controller, for example, and from the input unit 280 while a standby mode is maintained, the controller 290 may convert the mode of the display apparatus 200 from the standby mode to an operation mode][0011-0019]. However, Joo does not explicitly disclose switches the WOL function of the second communication apparatus to the disabled state. Pannell discloses switches the WOL function [wake on frame mechanism] of the second communication apparatus to the disabled state of the second communication apparatus [an apparatus] to the disabled state [Col. 1 lines 32-58: an apparatus includes a central processing unit (CPU) … the switch comprises a wake-on-frame mechanism that is disabled when the CPU is in an active state and enabled when the CPU is in an inactive state]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Joo and Pannell together because they both directed to use the WOL function to activate the computing device. Pannell’s disclosing of switching the apparatus from the power saving state to the active state and switching the WOL function of the apparatus to the disabled state would allow Joo to achieve more power saving by disabling the WOL function when the apparatus is in active mode. Regarding claim 2, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first communication apparatus further includes a storage unit configured to store the instruction information set by the user [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function] [0045-0048, 0067: (for example, a smart phone, etc.)]. Regarding claim 3, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 2, wherein, in a case where the instruction information is stored in the storage unit after a connection between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus is started, the communication unit of the first communication apparatus transmits the request information based on the instruction information to the second communication apparatus [abstract, 0010: The display apparatus includes a communicator configured to receive a power-on command from an external apparatus to perform a Wake On LAN (WOL) function][0045-0048, 0067: (for example, a smart phone, etc.)]. Regarding claim 4, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 3, wherein the instruction information includes a reset instruction for switching the WOL function of the second communication apparatus to the enabled state at a timing when the operation state of the second communication apparatus is an activated state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode.]. Regarding claim 5, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 4, wherein the control unit of the second communication apparatus switches the WOL function to the enabled state at a timing immediately after request information based on the reset instruction is received from the first communication apparatus state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode.]. Regarding claim 8, Joo discloses the communication system according to claim 2, wherein the instruction information includes a restore instruction for switching the WOL function to the enabled state at a timing immediately before the operation state of the second communication apparatus is switched from an activated state to the power saving state [0013, 0020: in response to the WOL function being turned on, may control the power supply unit to apply standby power to the communicator while the display apparatus is in a standby mode or in an operation mode.]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 20160132092 A1) and in view of Pannell (US Patent 11249541 B1) and in further view of Itkin (US 20230297669 A1). Regarding claim 6, Joo and Pannell do not explicitly disclose in a case where the activation packet is received when the operation state of the second communication apparatus is the activated state and the WOL function is enabled, the control unit of the second communication apparatus performs processing for reactivating the second communication apparatus. Itkin discloses in a case where the activation packet is received when the operation state of the second communication apparatus is the activated state and the WOL function is enabled, the control unit of the second communication apparatus performs processing for reactivating the second communication apparatus [0017: the remote machine is to packetize the secure reset request to be detected using a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) detector][0036: when it is desired to reset (i.e., reboot) the DPU or one or more processors of the DPU]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Joo, Pannell and Itkin together because they directed to use the WOL function to activate the computing device. Itkin’s disclosing of the instruction information includes a reset instruction for switching the WOL function of the second communication apparatus to the enabled state at a timing when the operation state of the second communication apparatus is an activated state would allow Joo in view of Pannell to ensure the communication between two devices in a connected state. Regarding claim 7, Itkin discloses the communication system according to claim 6, wherein the first communication apparatus further includes a control unit configured to, in a case where the instruction information including the reset instruction is stored in the storage unit, discard the instruction information including the reset instruction from the storage unit at a timing when the activation packet is transmitted to the second communication apparatus [0017, 0035-0038: reset request]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 of this title, 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US 20160132092 A1) and in view of Pannell (US Patent 11249541 B1) and in further view of Karp et al (US Publication 20160134932 A1). Regarding claim 9, Joo and Pannell do not disclose wherein the second communication apparatus is a camera. In the same field, Karp discloses wherein the second communication apparatus is a camera [0234: the device service 84 may wake any subscribers of the request (e.g., smart devices 10A-10C and 10E, and/or structures 10D associated with the request) (block 256). In one embodiment, the devices (e.g., thermostats 10A, detectors 10B, devices 10C, and/or camera devices 10E) and/or structures 10D may be equipped with wake-on-LAN (WOL) functionality that enables a device to sleep until particular data packets are received at the WOL equipped device]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Joo, Pannell and Karp together because they directed to use the WOL function to activate the computing device. Karp’s disclosing of the device receives the WOL signal is a camera device would allow Joo in view of Pannell to expand the teachings onto specific camara area. Conclusion Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner (see MPEP § 2123). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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. /PHIL K NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596395
HANDSHAKING MECHANISM FOR CLOCK NETWORK CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596396
AUTONOMOUS ADAPTIVELY RECONFIGURABLE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591290
TECHNIQUES FOR POWER SAVINGS, IMPROVED SECURITY, AND ENHANCED USER PERCEPTUAL AUDIO
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592567
POWER MANAGEMENT METHOD OF SYSTEM AND RELATED INTERNET DATA CENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578753
CLOCK ALIGNING CIRCUIT AND METHODS FOR OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 537 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