Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/441,969

PRIORITIZING TRANSMISSIONS BY USER EQUIPMENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2021
Examiner
SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
Art Unit
2477
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
469 granted / 677 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
736
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.9%
+16.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 677 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Amendment filed 3/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, and 29 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 26, and 27 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, and 28-34 remain pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 30, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao (US20220078813A1) in view of Lee et al. (US20200177254A1), hereafter Lee. Regarding claims 1 and 8, Miao discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media (Fig. 4, memory 401) having instructions (paragraph 45, 144, 186, 268) executed by processing circuitry (Fig. 4, processor 400) of an apparatus to determine a plurality of types of information are permitted to be transmitted in an UL gap (paragraph 15, 35; priority information of a Channel Status Indicator/CSI report or a Scheduling Request/SR). Miao further shows to determine a signal includes a CSI report (paragraph 15, 35, 114, 149, 168, 191, 233, 253; priority information of PUCCH transmission of a CSI report) and transmission of the signal during an UL gap (paragraph 35, 114, 149, 168, 191, 233, 253; priority transmission of PUCCH having CSI report “corresponding to the measurement gap”) and interface circuitry coupled to the processing circuitry to enable communication (Fig. 4, transceiver 402). Miao discloses the channel corresponding to the CSI corresponds to a measurement gap, but does not expressly show generating the CSI report signal for transmission during the UL gap. Lee discloses analogous art (Title: Apparatus and Method for Determining Whether to Provide a CSI Report) including generating the signal for transmission during the UL gap (Background; Fig. 3-5, 11-13; paragraph 219; CSI report is compiled and transmitted during UL gap if the CSI threshold < gap time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao by generating the CSI report signal for transmission during the UL gap, as shown by Lee, thereby determining to provide or drop the CSI report. Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, and 15, The combination of Miao and Lee discloses the signal is scheduled for transmission on a UL shared channel/PUSCH for a grant (Miao: paragraph 17, 19, 37-40, 76, 86; priority indication of grant for one of PDSCH, PUSCH, PUCCH corresponding to the measurement gap). Regarding claim 30 and 33, The combination of Miao and Lee discloses both periodic and aperiodic (i.e. semi-periodic) CSI reporting (Miao: paragraph 113-114; Lee: Abstract; Fig. 13; throughout disclosure). See motivation above. Regarding claims 31 and 34, The combination of Miao and Lee discloses the signal is dynamically scheduled to be transmitted during the UL gap (Miao: paragraph 109-117; see also Lee: paragraph 6, 60, 172-175; dynamic indication of TRPs). See motivation above. Claims 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao (US20220078813A1) in view of Lee et al. (US20200177254A1), hereafter Lee, and Cui et al. (US20220132527A1), hereafter Cui. Regarding claims 20 and 21, Miao discloses a method comprising determining a plurality of types of information are permitted to be transmitted in an UL gap (paragraph 15, 35; priority information of a Channel Status Indicator/CSI report or a Scheduling Request/SR) and generating a grant (paragraph 76-86; network device determines a parameter of configured grant as priority indication for PUCCH transmission corresponding to a measurement gap) for a CSI report signal to be transmitted to a device during an uplink gap (paragraph 35, 114, 149, 168, 191, 233, 253; priority transmission of PUCCH having CSI report “corresponding to the measurement gap”). Miao further shows to determine a signal includes a CSI report (paragraph 15, 35, 114, 149, 168, 191, 233, 253; priority information of PUCCH transmission of a CSI report) and transmission of the signal during an UL gap (paragraph 35, 114, 149, 168, 191, 233, 253; priority transmission of PUCCH having CSI report “corresponding to the measurement gap”) Miao discloses the channel corresponding to the CSI corresponds to a measurement gap, but does not expressly show generating the CSI report signal for transmission during the UL gap. Lee discloses analogous art (Title: Apparatus and Method for Determining Whether to Provide a CSI Report) including generating the signal for transmission during the UL gap (Background; Fig. 3-5, 11-13; paragraph 219; CSI report is compiled and transmitted during UL gap if the CSI threshold < gap time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao by generating the CSI report signal for transmission during the UL gap, as shown by Lee, thereby determining to provide or drop the CSI report. Miao also fails to expressly disclose generating an UL gap configuration for TX power management and FR2 operations that indicates one or more UL gap slots. Cui discloses analogous art (Title: scheduling restriction method for intra-frequency measurement) including generating UL gap configuration (measurement gap pattern/status, where UE needs measurement gaps/MG while simultaneously communicating on the serving cell; paragraph 26, 39; Fig. 11, 1102-1104) for transmission to a device for transmit power management and FR2 operations (paragraph 27, 35, 60; UL signal/gap of particular frequency band including FR2; paragraph 70, 236; UL transmission colliding with CSI in FR2) that indicates one or more UL gap slots (paragraph 87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao by providing generating an UL gap configuration for TX power management and FR2 operations that indicates one or more UL gap slots, as shown by Cui, thereby enabling prioritization among measurement signals (i.e. CSI report) and other UL signals on FR2 providing 5G/NR applications in the mmWave frequency range. Regarding claims 23, and 24, The combination of Miao, Lee, and Cui discloses the signal is scheduled for transmission on a UL shared channel/PUSCH for a grant (Miao: paragraph 17, 19, 37-40, 76, 86; priority indication of grant for one of PDSCH, PUSCH, PUCCH corresponding to the measurement gap; see also Cui: paragraph 35, 51-74; FR2 TDD for UL transmission on PUSCH). See motivation above. 5. Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao and Lee in view of Wei et al. (US20230224886A1), hereafter Wei. Regarding claim 16 and 28, The combination of Miao and Lee does not expressly disclose to puncture a UL gap slot of the UL gap to output the signal. Wei discloses analogous art (Title: Gap Configuration in Wireless Communications) including puncturing a UL gap slot of the UL gap to output the signal (Abstract; paragraph 8; Fig. 3, step 302-303; Fig. 7, step 701; puncturing on the uplink transmission when the scheduled gap is less than a desired gap). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao and Lee by puncturing a UL gap slot of the UL gap to output the signal, as shown by Wei, thereby increasing the gap size to improve RF operation. 6. Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao and Lee in view of Gou et al. (US20230039461A1), hereafter Gou. Regarding claims 18 and 29, The combination of Miao and Lee does not expressly disclose to determine whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of performing a BPS transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the BPS transmission. Gou discloses analogous art (Title/Abstract; Uplink Transmission according to relative priority) including to determine whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of a transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the transmission (Fig. 4-6; paragraph 28-31, 41-82; prioritized PUSCH transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao and Lee by determining whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of performing a transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the transmission, as shown by Gou, thereby improving reliability and flexibility of UL transmission. 7. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao, Lee, and Cui in view of Gou et al. (US20230039461A1), hereafter Gou. Regarding claim 25, The combination of Miao, Lee, and Cui does not expressly disclose to determine whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of performing a BPS transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the BPS transmission. Gou discloses analogous art (Title/Abstract; Uplink Transmission according to relative priority) including to determine whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of a transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the transmission (Fig. 4-6; paragraph 28-31, 41-82; prioritized PUSCH transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao, Lee, and Cui by determining whether to transmit the signal during the UL gap includes to determine a relative priority of performing a transmission during a UL gap slot and to transmit the CSI report in the UL gap slot prioritizes over performing the transmission, as shown by Gou, thereby improving reliability and flexibility of UL transmission. 8. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao and Lee in view of Zhou et al. (US20220077967A1), hereafter Zhou. Regarding claim 32, The combination of Miao and Lee does not expressly disclose to identify a MAC-CE including scheduling information that indicates the signal includes the CSI report. Zhou discloses analogous art (Title: Feedback triggered TX/RX for a UE based on multiple ACK/NACK) including CSI-RS configuration (Fig. 4, 406a) and determining priority of UL transmission (Fig. 4, 410). Zhou further discloses outputting a CSI report signal (Fig. 4, steps 418-420; paragraph 82) and identifying a MAC-CE including scheduling information that indicates the signal includes the CSI report (paragraph 37, 89, 120-125; dynamic signaling/scheduling via MAC-CE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Miao and Lee to identify a MAC-CE including scheduling information that indicates the signal includes the CSI report, as shown by Zhou, thereby enabling dynamically signaled priority indications for UL feedback. Response to Arguments 9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited Lee reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM. 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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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. /GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 13, 2024
Interview Requested
May 21, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
May 21, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 21, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 09, 2025
Interview Requested
May 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604276
USER EQUIPMENT (UE) CAPABILITY SIGNALING FOR MAXIMUM POWER SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568493
Multiple Downlink Semi-Persistent Scheduling Configurations for New Radio Internet of Things
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12513668
TECHNIQUES FOR USER EQUIPMENT (UE) PROCEDURES FOR RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL (RACH) TYPE SELECTION AND RANDOM ACCESS RESPONSE (RAR) MONITORING IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12513615
Device for and Method of Radio Access Technology Selection Among Multiple Radio Access Technologies
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12507319
UE-TO-UE RELAY SERVICE IN 5G SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+20.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 677 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