Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/552,121

TECHNIQUES FOR SURROUNDING INFORMATION INDICATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 15, 2021
Examiner
MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY
Art Unit
2647
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
6 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
409 granted / 627 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
674
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
64.9%
+24.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 627 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22, 25-26, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volos et al. (hereinafter Volos)(US 2019/0238436) in view of Saleh et al. (hereinafter Saleh)(US 2021/0049906) and Jaya et al. (hereinafter Jaya)(US 2023/0337269). Regarding claim 1, Volos teaches a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a network entity, signaling comprising information associated with a surrounding in which the UE is located and one or more environmental parameters comprising at least one of UE position information, a quantity of connected UEs at the network entity, or both, wherein the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located is determined via a sensor coupled with the network entity(P[0056], vehicle location, number of devices connected to a node; (abstract)latency characterization and prediction; Fig. 29, collection, monitoring and reporting system; system may include vehicles, mobile devices, network devices, also P[0110]); predicting based at least in part on the one or more environmental parameters(abstract, latency prediction; latency estimate; traffic jam and additional loads in a local network,P[0056]). Volos did not teach specifically predicting a potential physical object blockage of the UE based at least in part on the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located and on one or more objects associated with a trajectory of the UE; and performing a communication procedure with the network entity based at least in part on predicting the potential physical object blockage. However, Saleh teaches in an analogous art predicting a potential physical object blockage of the UE based at least in part on the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located and on one or more objects associated with a trajectory of the UE; and performing a communication procedure with the network entity based at least in part on predicting the potential physical object blockage(P[0031], there is an obstruction (foreign object on roadway) present; sensors detected physical object at the location of the obstruction; transmit notification of the potential obstruction to obstruction detection system). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to predict a potential physical object blockage of the UE based at least in part on the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located and on one or more objects associated with a trajectory of the UE; and performing a communication procedure with the network entity based at least in part on predicting the potential physical object blockage in order to have improved latency characterization. Volos in view of Saleh did not teach specifically predicting, by the UE,a potential physical object blockage of a communication link between the network entity and performing, by the UE, a communication procedure with the network entity. However, Jaya teaches in an analogous art predicting, by the UE,a potential physical object blockage of a communication link between the network entity and the UE based at least in part on the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located and on one or more objects associated with a trajectory of the UE; and performing, by the UE, a communication procedure with the network entity based at least in part on predicting the potential physical object blockage and based at least in part on the one or more environmental parameters(items 702-703 in Fig. 7; P[0321-0324]; P[0114-0115], prediction of the WTRU positioning trajectory; P[0115], visual information sent by WTRU may also contain visual objects related to potential blockage in the communication path between the WTRU and the network device; P[0169], current location and trajectory and expected future location; P[0205], potential link blockages). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention t opredict, by the UE,a potential physical object blockage of a communication link between the network entity and the UE based at least in part on the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located and on one or more objects associated with a trajectory of the UE; and performing, by the UE, a communication procedure with the network entity based at least in part on predicting the potential physical object blockage and based at least in part on the one or more environmental parameters in order to have improved radio coverage. Regarding claim 2, Volos teaches the method, wherein receiving one or more environmental parameters receiving further comprises: a time of day(P[0056], time of day). Regarding claim 4, Volos teaches the method, further comprising: identifying a deployment information associated with the UE based at least in part on receiving the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located, wherein the communication procedure is based at least in part on the deployment information(P[0044], monitoring the latency of the signals transmitted to or from the RSD and share to other nodes information indicative of the state of the environment). Regarding claim 5, Volos teaches the method, wherein the deployment information comprises at least one of an urban microcell deployment, an urban macrocell deployment, an inhouse deployment, or a combination thereof(Fig. 20; cloud based network). Regarding claim 7, Volos teaches determining a crowd level at the surrounding based at least in part on receiving the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located, wherein the communication procedure comprises transmitting an adjusted measurement report based at least in part on the crowd level at the surrounding(P[0045], traffic data; P[0056], traffic jam which may cause additional loads in a local traffic; P[0110], unusual traffic; report may be shared and thus preventing). Regarding claim 8, Saleh teaches detecting an object within the surrounding based at least in part on receiving the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located, wherein the communication procedure is based at least in part on the detected object(P[0031], transmits a notification of the potential obstruction and can be implemented in servers with which connected vehicles can communicate; P[0038], user as operator; P[0002], vehicles or mobile devices). Regarding claim 9, Volos in view of Saleh teaches wherein receiving the information further comprises: receiving, via a control signal, the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located(Volos: P[0048], share latency information; receiving latency estimates; Saleh: P[0029], vehicles (UE) receive rerouting information to avoid the identified obstruction). Regarding claim 13, Volos in view of Saleh teaches receiving, via a camera included within the network entity, an image of the surrounding in which the UE is located; and processing the image to identify the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located, wherein transmitting the indication is based at least in part on processing the image)P[0013, 0020, 0035], image sensors). Regarding claim 15, Volos in view of Saleh teaches determining historical data associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located; and identifying the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located based at least in part on the historical data(Volos: P[0042-0043], historical latency data). Claim 12, 14, 17-18, 20-21, 22 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 respectively. Claim 25-26, 28 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-2, 4 respectively. Claim 29-30 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, 13 respectively. Claim(s) 10, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volos et al. (hereinafter Volos)(US 2019/0238436) in view of Saleh et al. (hereinafter Saleh)(US 2021/0049906), Jaya et al. (hereinafter Jaya)(US 2023/0337269) and Gomes (hereinafter Gomes)(2019/0205115). Regarding claim 11, Volos in view of Saleh and Jaya teaches all the particulars of the claim except wherein the control signal comprises at least one of a downlink control information, a medium access control layer control element, a radio resource control signal, or a combination thereof. However, Gomes teaches in an analogous art the method, wherein the control signal comprises at least one of a downlink control information, a medium access control layer control element, a radio resource control signal, or a combination thereof (P[0143, 0151], MAC interfaces). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the control signal comprises at least one of a downlink control information, a medium access control layer control element, a radio resource control signal, or a combination thereof in order to have improved capability. Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10. Claim(s) 6, 11, 19, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volos et al. (hereinafter Volos)(US 2019/0238436) in view of Saleh et al. (hereinafter Saleh)(US 2021/0049906), Jaya et al. (hereinafter jaya)(US 2023/0337269)and Lin (hereinafter Lin)(CN 113099529). Regarding claim 6, Volos in view of Saleh and Jaya teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, further comprising: predicting that the trajectory of UE to transition into based at least in part on receiving the information associated with the surrounding in which the UE is located, wherein the communication procedure is based at least in part on predicting that the trajectory of UE(as in claim 1). Volos in view of Saleh and Jaya teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, further comprising: indoor setting. However, Lin teaches in an analogous art the method, further comprising: indoor setting(title; abstract; Page 19, parking area). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include indoor setting in order to have wider applicability. Regarding claim 11, Volos in view of Saleh and Jaya teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, further comprising: wherein the information indicates whether the UE is located indoors, outdoors, or indeterminate. However, Lin teaches in an analogous art the method, further comprising: wherein the information indicates whether the UE is located indoors, outdoors, or indeterminate (page 11; realizing indoor and outdoor locating full coverage). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the information indicates whether the UE is located indoors, outdoors, or indeterminate in order to have improved capability. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments file 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion 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 MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm. 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, Alison T Slater can be reached on 571-270-0375. 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. /MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 27, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 09, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12571920
TERMINAL DEVICE, INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12549954
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING OPTIMIZED NETWORK RESOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12523736
ON-DEMAND POSITIONING REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12520227
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING WIRELESS NETWORK CONGESTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12493100
PASSIVE POSITIONING WITH ANALOG BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 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
65%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+16.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 627 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