Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/882,350

SERVER, USER TERMINAL, AND SERVICE PROVIDING METHOD, AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §101§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Priority
Nov 13, 2009 — RE 10-2009-0109512 +7 more
Examiner
ROBINSON, TERRELL M
Art Unit
2614
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
411 granted / 495 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
517
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
91.3%
+51.3% vs TC avg
§102
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 495 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Examiner’s Comment While the current application recites subject matter that was previously allowed, the current application is subject to a statutory double patenting rejection which requires claim amendments to overcome, in addition to a non-statutory double patenting rejection as further detailed below. Therefore, any further determinations on the previously allowed subject matter will be made upon such amendments. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, line 6 – “with to” should be “with”. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting (Statutory) A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-12 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,106,409 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Application 18/882,350 U.S. Patent No. 12,106,409 B2 Claim 1 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 7 Claim 8 Claim 8 Claim 9 Claim 9 Claim 10 Claim 10 Claim 11 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 12 Double Patenting (Non-Statutory) 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Double patenting between App. 18/882,350 and U.S. Patent No. 11,776,185 B2 Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,185 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the methods steps of the current application with those of U.S. Patent No. 18/882,350 B2 as the claims of the current application are broader in scope than those of the issued patent. Application 18/882,350 U.S. Patent No. 11,776,185 B2 Claim 1 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 3 Claim 8 Claim 4 Claim 9 Claim 10 Claim 11 Claim 12 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL M ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3526. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. 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, KENT CHANG can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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. /TERRELL M ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639859
FIX-POINT IMPLEMENTATION OF MESH CODEC
2y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12633030
OPTIMIZATION OF GRAPHICS WORKLOADS THROUGH FUTURE FRAMES
2y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12626433
GENERATING SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT AND IMAGE CONTENT IN MULTIMODAL DIGITAL CONTENT ITEMS VIA MACHINE LEARNING
2y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12627783
IMAGE GENERATION
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12608872
TECHNIQUES FOR MODEL-BASED IMAGE OPERATION IN EFFECT CREATION TOOLS
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 21, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 3m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 495 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