Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/395,797

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Aug 06, 2021
Examiner
VOGEL, JAY L.
Art Unit
2478
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Asustek Computer Inc.
OA Round
9 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 439 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
482
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 439 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/10/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Double Patenting: The rejections regarding Non-Statutory Double Patenting have been withdrawn in lieu of Applicant’s amendments. Prior art rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/103 Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues the cited portions of the prior art fail to teach a bandwidth part is a subset of contiguous common resource blocks within a carrier bandwidth. This is very different from Sakhnini who teaches the bandwidth prat is merely the available resource of a component carrier. Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 1/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Sakhnini teaches a bandwidth part in Figure 3 that is part of a carrier. Schober as previously used to modify Sakhnini teaches configuring a bandwidth part as in ¶0067, ¶0092. Newly cited portion of Schober clearly shows the taught BWPs are subsets of resources in a carrier (contiguous resource blocks), the carrier for use in forming multiple BWPs for multiple users ¶0061. Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues the cited portions of the prior art fail to teach the “RIV indicating a starting position and a length of the first resource allocation” but rather Schober teaches “a start of the resource allocation, with the first or the second allocation granularity; and a length corresponding to a number of contiguously allocated resource blocks with the second resource allocation granularity” thus related to two different resource allocations and not the claimed “first” resource allocation. Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 1/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Schober teaches in ¶0092, Figure 7, RIV indicates a starting position, and the length corresponding to the second allocation granularity (being the larger BWP), while further indicating a truncation indication that specifies a truncation RB, thus considered a start and length (the start to the truncated RB) for the first resource allocation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-12, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhnini et al. (“Sakhnini”) (US 20210289533 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 62/988,112 filed March 11, 2020) in view of Schober et al. (“Schober”) (US 20190097771 A1). Regarding claim 1, Sakhnini teaches: A method of a User Equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a configuration of a bandwidth part from a base station [Figure 4, ¶0057 shows UE 120, receives configuration of CSI-RS which configures a frequency range with bandwidth and starting RB, frequency ranges corresponding to a bandwidth part as in Figure 3 ¶0050 where UE configured to communicate on range of resources on BWP, thus the CSI-RS configuration specifying bandwidth is considered “configuration of a bandwidth part”]; deriving a subset of frequency resources within the bandwidth part, wherein the subset of frequency resources comprises contiguous Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) and is different from the bandwidth part [¶0060, UE supports a reduced bandwidth less than a bandwidth of a component carrier (corresponding to “deriving, by the UE and separate from frequency resource allocation, a subset”), the reduced bandwidth shown in Figure 3 315 ¶0051 comprising a derived subset considered contiguous as shown Figure 3 and represented by “UE may be configured as a reduced capability UE (e.g., a reduced capability NR device) that is configured to support a relatively narrow frequency range” (Corresponding to contiguous), separate from frequency resource allocation as UE is configured to support this reduced frequency range]; receiving Downlink Control Information (DCI), from the base station, indicating resource allocation within a window of the bandwidth part [Figure 5, 510, corresponding to Figure 4 415, “base station may transmit an indication of a frequency allocation. In some aspects, the UE may receive the indication of the frequency allocation associated with a dynamic resource grant” see grant in Figure 3, grant block within 315, corresponding to “indicating resource allocation within a window of the bandwidth part” wherein ¶0094 “process 500 includes receiving one or more of the indications via one or more of DCI or a MAC CE.”], for a transmission within the subset of frequency resources [¶059 DCI for dynamic grant shown in 315 for transmission within subset of frequency resources i.e. within granted resources see “for one or more communications with a base station”]. Sakhnini teaches information on CSI-RS allocation but does not expressly teach via a bitmap however Schober teaches receiving Downlink Control Information (DCI), from the base station, indicating resource allocation via a Resource Indicator Value (RIV), indicating a starting position and a length of the resource allocation [¶0067, “a user equipment may determine a first resource allocation granularity, such as a RBG size or RBG size of NB BWP” and “The UE then receives a downlink control information (DCI) message indicating a resource allocation for either downlink or uplink, which includes a Resource indication value (RIV)” and see ¶0092, Figure 7, “(RIV) indicating an index of a starting resource […] and a number of contiguously allocated resources […] and a truncation indication for indicating whether the user equipment is to truncate the resource allocation […] determining, by the user equipment, the starting resource (starting position) and ending resource (length)” according to RIV thus the indicated number of contiguously allocated resources and the truncation indication effectively communicates the length of the subset ¶0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the indication is sent via RIV with starting position and length. Sakhnini teaches a resource grant indicated via DCI as in ¶0059, ¶0094, Figure 4-5, and it would have been obvious to specify that the resource grant is indicated using a RIV within a DCI as Schober teaches indicating resources for transmission within BWP using the RIV field allows to address issues of wasted resources in bandwidth parts ¶0065-66. Sakhnini teaches a bandwidth part in Figure 3 as part of a carrier but does not expressly teach it is a subset of a carrier. Schober teaches wherein the bandwidth part is a subset of contiguous common resource blocks within a carrier bandwidth [¶0061 “A NR gNB can operate different users on different BWPs (including bandwidth part) of a single NW carrier (carrier bandwidth)” thus bandwidth parts are subsets within contiguous resource blocks of a carrier bandwidth]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the bandwidth part is a subset of a carrier resource blocks as in Schober. Sakhnini teaches a carrier with bandwidth part in Figure 3 and it would have been obvious to specify it is within a carrier of common resource blocks as in Schober who teaches this allows for scheduling different users on different BWPs across one carrier ¶0061. Regarding claim 2, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein resources allocated for the transmission are part of the subset of frequency resource(s) [Sakhnini ¶0055-60, ¶0051, Figure 3, 315, Grant resources allocated within narrow BW supported by UE]. Regarding claim 7, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the UE is not allowed to be scheduled outside the subset of frequency resources [Sakhnini ¶0055 “the UE (e.g., a reduced capability UE) may not support communications via the entire BWP of the component carrier based at least in part on a configuration of the UE, one or more components of the UE, and/or the like”]. Regarding claim 8, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein maximum bandwidth of the UE is smaller than bandwidth of the bandwidth part [Sakhnini ¶0051 “the UE may be configured as a reduced capability UE (e.g., a reduced capability NR device) that is configured to support a relatively narrow frequency range (e.g., a frequency range with a range that is less than a range of the BWP of the component carrier)”]. Regarding claim 10. Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) is fixed or pre-defined [Sakhnini ¶0051-55 UE reduced bandwidth for narrow BW within BWP considered fix / pre-defined]. Regarding claim 11, Sakhnini teaches: A method of a base station, comprising: transmitting a configuration of a bandwidth part to a user equipment (UE) [Figure 4, ¶0057 shows UE 120, receives configuration of CSI-RS which configures a frequency range with bandwidth and starting RB, frequency ranges corresponding to a bandwidth part as in Figure 3 ¶0050 where UE configured to communicate on range of resources on BWP, thus the CSI-RS configuration specifying bandwidth is considered “configuration of a bandwidth part”]; deriving a subset of frequency resources within the bandwidth part, wherein the subset of frequency resources comprises contiguous Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) and is different from the bandwidth part [¶0060, UE supports a reduced bandwidth less than a bandwidth of a component carrier (corresponding to “deriving, by the UE and separate from frequency resource allocation, a subset”), the reduced bandwidth shown in Figure 3 315 ¶0051 comprising a derived subset considered contiguous as shown Figure 3 and represented by “UE may be configured as a reduced capability UE (e.g., a reduced capability NR device) that is configured to support a relatively narrow frequency range” (Corresponding to contiguous), separate from frequency resource allocation as UE is configured to support this reduced frequency range]; and indicating, to the UE via Downlink Control Information (DCI), a resource allocation within a window of the bandwidth part [Figure 5, 510, corresponding to Figure 4 415, “base station may transmit an indication of a frequency allocation. In some aspects, the UE may receive the indication of the frequency allocation associated with a dynamic resource grant” see grant in Figure 3, grant block within 315, corresponding to “indicating resource allocation within a window of the bandwidth part” wherein ¶0094 “process 500 includes receiving one or more of the indications via one or more of DCI or a MAC CE.”] for a transmission within the subset of contiguously allocated frequency resources [¶059 DCI for dynamic grant shown in 315 for transmission within subset of frequency resources i.e. within granted resources see “for one or more communications with a base station”]. Sakhnini teaches information on CSI-RS allocation but does not expressly teach via a bitmap however Schober teaches receiving Downlink Control Information (DCI), from the base station, indicating a first resource allocation via a Resource Indicator Value (RIV), indicating a starting position and a length of the first resource allocation [¶0067, “a user equipment may determine a first resource allocation granularity, such as a RBG size or RBG size of NB BWP” and “The UE then receives a downlink control information (DCI) message indicating a resource allocation for either downlink or uplink, which includes a Resource indication value (RIV)” and see ¶0092, Figure 7, “(RIV) indicating an index of a starting resource […] and a number of contiguously allocated resources […] and a truncation indication for indicating whether the user equipment is to truncate the resource allocation […] determining, by the user equipment, the starting resource (starting position) and and ending resource (length)” thus the indicated number of contiguously allocated resources and the truncation indication effectively communicates the length of the subset ¶0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the indication is sent via RIV with starting position and length. Sakhnini teaches a resource grant indicated via DCI as in ¶0059, ¶0094, Figure 4-5, and it would have been obvious to specify that the resource grant is indicated using a RIV within a DCI as Schober teaches indicating resources for transmission within BWP using the RIV field allows to address issues of wasted resources in bandwidth parts ¶0065-66. Sakhnini teaches a bandwidth part in Figure 3 as part of a carrier but does not expressly teach it is a subset of a carrier. Schober teaches wherein the bandwidth part is a subset of contiguous common resource blocks within a carrier bandwidth [¶0061 “A NR gNB can operate different users on different BWPs (including bandwidth part) of a single NW carrier (carrier bandwidth)” thus bandwidth parts are subsets within contiguous resource blocks of a carrier bandwidth]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the bandwidth part is a subset of a carrier resource blocks as in Schober. Sakhnini teaches a carrier with bandwidth part in Figure 3 and it would have been obvious to specify it is within a carrier of common resource blocks as in Schober who teaches this allows for scheduling different users on different BWPs across one carrier ¶0061. Regarding claim 12, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein resources allocated for the transmission are part of the subset of frequency resource(s) [Sakhnini ¶0055-60, ¶0051, Figure 3, 315, Grant resources allocated within narrow BW supported by UE]. Regarding claim 17, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein the base station is not allowed to schedule the UE outside the subset of frequency resources [Sakhnini ¶0055 “the UE (e.g., a reduced capability UE) may not support communications via the entire BWP of the component carrier based at least in part on a configuration of the UE, one or more components of the UE, and/or the like” thus no resources may be scheduled for the UE outside the narrow bandwidth within the BWP]. Regarding claim 18, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein maximum bandwidth of the UE is smaller than bandwidth of the bandwidth part [Sakhnini ¶0051 “the UE may be configured as a reduced capability UE (e.g., a reduced capability NR device) that is configured to support a relatively narrow frequency range (e.g., a frequency range with a range that is less than a range of the BWP of the component carrier)”]. Regarding claim 20, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11, wherein bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) is fixed or pre-defined [Sakhnini ¶0051-55 UE reduced bandwidth for narrow BW within BWP considered fix / pre-defined]. Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhnini et al. (“Sakhnini”) (US 20210289533 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 62/988,112 filed March 11, 2020) in view of Schober et al. (“Schober”) (US 20190097771 A1) and Li et al. (“Li”) (US 20200008202 A1). Regarding claim 4, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1. Sakhnini teaches DCI but not a size of the field however Li teaches a size of a resource allocation field in the DCI is determined based on a bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) [¶0057 shows that resource allocation field sizes can be determined to be a specific number of bits based on RBG size, and further ¶0111-112, the DCI includes available bits used to encode the RBs within the BWP assigned thus the bits is based on the size of the RB length or bandwidth,]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the configurable DCI size as in Li. Sakhnini teaches indicating via DCI however it would have been obvious to specify the DCI field size based on the allocated resources as in Li to address issues with limited DCI sizes where the number of available bits can be insufficient to signal and/or indicate to the UEs all of the relevant combinations of RB allocations in the active BWP, including various starting positions and lengths, and overcome inadequate resource assignments ¶0011. Regarding claim 6, Sakhnini- Schober teaches The method of claim 1. Sakhnini teaches indicating resources but not the bandwidth of the subset however Li teaches bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) is indicated to the UE [¶0111-112, also ¶0086 indicate starting block and length of RBs within BWP considered subset bandwidth]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the bandwidth in the DCI as in Li. Sakhnini teaches indicating via DCI however it would have been obvious to specify the bandwidth as in Li to address issues with limited DCI sizes where the number of available bits can be insufficient to signal and/or indicate to the UEs all of the relevant combinations of RB allocations in the active BWP, including various starting positions and lengths, and overcome inadequate resource assignments ¶0011. Regarding claim 9, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1. Sakhnini teaches reduced bandwidth part for CSI but not data however Li teaches the transmission is for a data channel [¶0111 “UE can transmit or receive data, to or from the network node, using the one or more assigned RBs within the active BWP”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the communication is data. Sakhnini teaches CSI information but it would have been obvious to replace this with data communication as in Li as it would have been a simple substitution of parts to replace the control information with data as in Li ¶0016 for facilitating reduced latency in the network, leading to improved end user performance or quality of experience. Regarding claim 14, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11. Sakhnini teaches DCI but not a size of the field however Li teaches a size of a resource allocation field in the DCI is determined based on a bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) [¶0057 shows that resource allocation field sizes can be determined to be a specific number of bits based on RBG size, and further ¶0111-112, the DCI includes available bits used to encode the RBs within the BWP assigned thus the bits is based on the size of the RB length or bandwidth,]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the configurable DCI size as in Li. Sakhnini teaches indicating via DCI however it would have been obvious to specify the DCI field size based on the allocated resources as in Li to address issues with limited DCI sizes where the number of available bits can be insufficient to signal and/or indicate to the UEs all of the relevant combinations of RB allocations in the active BWP, including various starting positions and lengths, and overcome inadequate resource assignments ¶0011. Regarding claim 16, Sakhnini- Schober teaches The method of claim 11. Sakhnini teaches indicating resources but not the bandwidth of the subset however Li teaches bandwidth of the subset of frequency resource(s) is indicated to the UE [¶0111-112, also ¶0086 indicate starting block and length of RBs within BWP considered subset bandwidth]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the bandwidth in the DCI as in Li. Sakhnini teaches indicating via DCI however it would have been obvious to specify the bandwidth as in Li to address issues with limited DCI sizes where the number of available bits can be insufficient to signal and/or indicate to the UEs all of the relevant combinations of RB allocations in the active BWP, including various starting positions and lengths, and overcome inadequate resource assignments ¶0011. Regarding claim 19, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11. Sakhnini teaches reduced bandwidth part for CSI but not data however Li teaches the transmission is for a data channel [¶0111 “UE can transmit or receive data, to or from the network node, using the one or more assigned RBs within the active BWP”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the communication is data. Sakhnini teaches CSI information but it would have been obvious to replace this with data communication as in Li as it would have been a simple substitution of parts to replace the control information with data as in Li ¶0016 for facilitating reduced latency in the network, leading to improved end user performance or quality of experience. Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhnini et al. (“Sakhnini”) (US 20210289533 A1, effective filing date of provisional application 62/988,112 filed March 11, 2020) in view of Schober et al. (“Schober”) (US 20190097771 A1) and Li et al. (“Li”) (US 20190296882 A1). Regarding claim 5, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 1. Sakhnini teaches allocating the subset BWP but not expressly frequency allocation of the subset however Li teaches wherein frequency location of the subset of frequency resources is indicated to the UE [¶0083-84, UE receives a BWP switch that indicates one of BWP configurations via RRC, see Figure 11 ¶0081 showing the configurations such as 1120, thus indicating the BWP configuration corresponding to 1120 considered indicating frequency location of the subset, BWP 1120 being a subset of larger BWP 1116 see ¶0089, thus the configuration of narrow BWP being the subset may be indicated in the switch]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating the BWP configuration corresponding to a frequency location of the subset as in Li. Sakhnini teaches configuring reduced bandwidth BWP and it would have been obvious to indicate frequency location information of the subset for reduced BW as in Li who teaches this allows for BWP adaptation and achieving higher flexibility and efficiency ¶0085 and ¶0089. Regarding claim 15, Sakhnini- Schober teaches: The method of claim 11. Sakhnini teaches allocating the subset BWP but not expressly frequency allocation of the subset however Li teaches wherein frequency location of the subset of frequency resources is indicated to the UE [¶0083-84, UE receives a BWP switch that indicates one of BWP configurations via RRC, see Figure 11 ¶0081 showing the configurations such as 1120, thus indicating the BWP configuration corresponding to 1120 considered indicating frequency location of the subset, BWP 1120 being a subset of larger BWP 1116 see ¶0089, thus the configuration of narrow BWP being the subset may be indicated in the switch]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating the BWP configuration corresponding to a frequency location of the subset as in Li. Sakhnini teaches configuring reduced bandwidth BWP and it would have been obvious to indicate frequency location information of the subset for reduced BW as in Li who teaches this allows for BWP adaptation and achieving higher flexibility and efficiency ¶0085 and ¶0089. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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. /JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 06, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Sep 06, 2023
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Dec 20, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Apr 18, 2024
Response Filed
May 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Aug 07, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Jan 23, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
May 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Jan 10, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598511
SEGMENTATION FOR COORDINATION AMONG MULTIPLE NODES IN DUAL CONNECTIVITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588013
COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581360
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR UWB COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567995
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO PAUSE CONTROL LOOP EXECUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568392
MEASURING RADIO CHARACTERISTICS OF MEASUREMENT OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+25.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 439 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