Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/170,860

Method and System for Seamless Media Synchronization and Handoff

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
Apr 04, 2025
Priority
Sep 24, 2020 — provisional 63/082,896 +2 more
Examiner
SASINOWSKI, ANDREW
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
673 granted / 864 resolved
+15.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§112
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 864 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT §DP
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 . 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 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims recites similar claim elements and limitations. The claims are compared below: Present claim 1 Claim 1 of 11,900,012 A method performed by at least one programmed processor of a first electronic device, the method comprising: receiving a microphone signal; determining whether a second electronic device has stopped playing back audio content through a loudspeaker based on the microphone signal; and responsive to determining that the second electronic device has stopped playing back the audio content, causing a speaker of a headset to play back the audio content. A method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: identifying audio content captured by a microphone of the electronic device, the audio content output by an audio playback device via a loudspeaker; and in response to determining that the audio playback device has ceased outputting the audio content, retrieving an audio signal that corresponds to the audio content; and driving a speaker that is not part of the audio playback device using the audio signal to continue outputting the audio content. Present claim 8 Claim 20 of 11,900,012 A first electronic device comprising: at least one processor; and memory having instructions which when executed by the at least one processor causes the first electronic device to: receive a microphone signal; determine whether a second electronic device has stopped playing back audio content through a loudspeaker based on the microphone signal; and responsive to a determination that the second electronic device has stopped playing back the audio content, cause a speaker of a headset to play back the audio content. A audio system comprising a processor; and memory having instructions which when executed by the processor causes the audio system to receive a microphone signal that includes audio content output by an audio playback device via a loudspeaker; perform an acoustic signal analysis upon the microphone signal to identify the audio content; and in response to determining that the audio playback device has ceased outputting the audio content, continue to output the audio content via a speaker. Present claim 15 Claim 20 of 11,900,012 A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions which when executed by at least one processor of a first electronic device causes the first electronic device to: receive a microphone signal; determine whether a second electronic device has stopped playing back audio content through a loudspeaker based on the microphone signal; and responsive to determining that the second electronic device has stopped playing back the audio content, cause a speaker of a headset to play back the audio content. A audio system comprising a processor; and memory having instructions which when executed by the processor causes the audio system to receive a microphone signal that includes audio content output by an audio playback device via a loudspeaker; perform an acoustic signal analysis upon the microphone signal to identify the audio content; and in response to determining that the audio playback device has ceased outputting the audio content, continue to output the audio content via a speaker. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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. /ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2025
Application Filed
May 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12682819
DISPLAY DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOF
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12682928
MAGNETIC TAPE, MAGNETIC TAPE CARTRIDGE, MAGNETIC TAPE SYSTEM, TEST METHOD, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF MAGNETIC TAPE
10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12669717
DISPLAY DEVICE
1y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12664930
DRIVING APPARATUS AND DRIVING METHOD FOR LED DISPLAY, AND LED DISPLAY
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12625559
GESTURE DETECTION USING EXTERNAL SENSORS
1y 8m to grant Granted May 12, 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
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 5m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 864 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