Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/918,910

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Examiner
VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R
Art Unit
2431
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
626 granted / 799 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
822
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 799 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 18/918,910 is presented for examination by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been received. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. As per claims 1, 12, and 19, the terms “a user’s” and “a user” constitute a reciting a user twice because later the motion is tied to the user. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 are likewise rejected. As per claims 3 and 14, a second signal is defined after already having defined a second signal in claims 1 and 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP Application Publication 2020/0285873 to Condon. As per claims 1, 12, and 19, Condon teaches an electronic device comprising: at least one motion sensor [motion sensor 110]; at least one biometric sensor [biometric sensors 12 (ECG)]; memory storing one or more computer programs (Fig. 5); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one motion sensor, the at least one biometric sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 5), cause the electronic device to: based on receiving a request for user authentication (0061), acquire a first signal through the at least one motion sensor [motion detected:0061], and acquire a second signal through the at least one biometric sensor (0061), acquire motion information indicating a type of a user’s motion based on the first signal (0078 and 0095), acquire biometric information indicating a biometric feature of a user according to the motion of the user based on the second signal [motion triggers biometric capturing; 0063 and 0095], and input the motion information and the biometric information into a user authentication model (0017), and perform the user authentication according to whether the type of the motion (0078) and the biometric feature match authentication information (0064 and 0107). As per claims 3 and 14, Condon teaches based on the first signal starting to be received through the at least one motion sensor, acquire a second signal through the at least one biometric sensor [large motion trigger authentication; 0061 and 0062]. As per claim 5, Condon teaches the at least one biometric sensor comprises a bioimpedance sensor (0003 and 0064), and wherein the biometric information comprises information on an electrical feature transmitted from at least one of a muscle, a tissue, or a joint of the user according to the motion of the user (0004 and 0077). As per claim 6 Condon teaches the at least one biometric sensor comprises a heartbeat sensor (0062 and 0092), and wherein the biometric information comprises information on a heart rate feature transmitted from a heart of the user while the motion of the user is being performed (0065). As per claim 7, Condon teaches acquire stress information indicating a stress level of the user based on the biometric information (0064 and 0108), and wherein the user authentication model performs the user authentication according to whether the stress level (0068 and 0070), the type of the motion (0072), and the heart rate feature (0080 and 0081) match the authentication information [all of these indicators are used to authenticate the user]. As per claims 8 and 16, Condon teaches perform pre-processing for removing at least one of noises or trends of the first signal and the second signal (0105 and 0106); and acquire the motion information (0072) and the biometric information based on the pre-processed first signal and the pre-processed second signal (0063-0066 and 0105-0106). As per claim 9, Condon teaches a wearing part (0017), wherein one or more sensors included in the at least one motion sensor (0054) and the at least one biometric sensor are coupled to the wearing part (0111 and Fig. 5). As per claims 10 and 17, Condon teaches a communicator (240 transmitter; 0054], wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: based on identifying that the user is an unregistered user as a result that the user authentication was performed [authentication failed], maintain locking of the electronic device [stays in authentication failed state; 0070 and 0091], and control the communicator to transmit a message for guiding that authentication by an unregistered user was performed to an external device connected to the electronic device [transmits authentication response to external terminal and the physiological state of the user to the terminal; 0066]. 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 2, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon in view of USP Application Publication 20190268321 to Kim et al., hereinafter Kim. As per claims 2, 13, and 20, Condon teaches updating the authentication information based on the motion information and the biometric information (0070). Condon is silent in explicitly teaching to release locking of the electronic device. Condon does explicitly teach successful authentication unlocks other devices (terminal) but not the device to which the sensors reside. On the other hand. Kim teaches teaching to release locking of the electronic device that has the biometric sensors (0243). Kim device can also be a wearable device (0046). Condon already teaches the electronic has a display that shows the result of authentication (0066). Thus, it would have been obvious to unlock the device itself after successful authentication. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results. As per claims 11 and 18, Condon teaches an outputter [display screen; 0066], wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: based on identifying that the user is an unregistered user as a result that the user authentication was performed, maintain locking of the electronic device [device remain in a locked state that does not permit user to access the terminal when authentication fails; 0070 and 0091]. Condon is silent in explicitly teaching to control the outputter to output a guide message for requesting additional authentication. On the other hand, Kim teaches to control the outputter to output a guide message for requesting additional authentication (0339). Since the display of Condon displays the result of an authentication it would have been useful to give the user feedback that more authentication is required when it fails. Thus, the teaching of Kim would have provided this useful user feedback with predictable result. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon in view of USP 9,277,334 to Wong et al., hereinafter Wong. As per claims 4 and 15, Condon is silent in explicitly teaching the at least one biometric sensor comprises a bone conduction sensor, and wherein the biometric information comprises information on an audio feature transmitted from at least one of a bone or a joint of the user according to the motion of the user. Wong on the other hand teaches, the at least one biometric sensor comprises a bone conduction sensor (col. 13, lines 10-15), and wherein the biometric information comprises information on an audio feature transmitted from at least one of a bone or a joint of the user according to the motion of the user (col. 13, line 60-col. 14, line 8). Wong clearly teaches a bone conduction biometrical authentication. When activated to authenticate the bone conduction sensor sends and receives an audio signal through the user’s bones. Condon already discloses that large movements can trigger authentication process and teaches many types of biometric sensors. Substituting one type of biometric sensor for another yields a predictable result. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can substitute methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the enclosed PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 5:30pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598464
POLICIES RELATED TO NON-PUBLIC NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580933
CORRELATING FIREWALL AND ZERO TRUST DATA TO MONITOR REMOTE AND HYBRID WORKER SESSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561488
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTEXTUAL ACTIVATION OF ONLOOKER DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563100
RESOURCE-MONITORING TELEMETRY IN A ZERO-TRUST COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556587
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING SECURITY MODELS THROUGH SCENARIO GENERATION AND EVALUATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 799 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