Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/954,765

REDUCING CONTENTION BY IMPROVING THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE TARGET OF A RESPONSE SIGNAL

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
RUTNAM, SAMUEL DILAN
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
37 granted / 41 resolved
+32.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
92
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
63.0%
+23.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 41 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This Final Office Action is in response to application number 17/954,765 filed on April 14th,2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicant’s amendment filed 04/14/2025 is acknowledged Claims 1,3-10,12-13,14,15-20,21 have been amended Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on November 10th,2022. Information Disclosure Statements The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on June 20th, 2025 June 30th, 2023 and September 28th, 2022, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1,3,6-10 and 12-17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being unpatentable over Mahalingam et al. (CN 112154707 A also published as US 20210029658 A1). Regarding claim 1, Mahalingam et al. disclose an apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to generate a request (Paragraph 0192 discloses “…a WTRU may transmit a first RACH message 1807 and wait for a RAR”) ; circuitry configured to determine a timing advance to be applied to a predetermined time of transmission of said request in order for said request to reach a destination at said predetermined time (Paragraph 0165 discloses “…the timing offset may be estimated by the WTRU and applied to the PRACH transmission); circuitry configured to determine an expected time delay for transmission of said request signal to said destination said timing advance being determined in dependence upon said expected time delay (Paragraph 0165 discloses “…the WTRU may be able to obtain its own location information through these systems and use it to estimate the timing offset for adjusting its PRACH transmission prior to receiving a TA command from a base station (i.e., a gNB)”); a transmitter configured to transmit said request signal towards said destination (Paragraph 0165); circuitry configured to provide a timing offset (Paragraph 0169 and FIG. 11 disclose at step 1104 “…the WTRU may derive the timing offset based on the WTRU location and/or satellite location.”); said transmitter being configured to transmit said request signal with said timing offset (Paragraph 0169 and FIG. 11 at step 1106 discloses “… the WTRU may apply the derived timing offset to the PRACH transmission.”);a receiver configured to receive a response from said destination, said response comprising a timing advance indication, said timing advance indication indicating a difference in time between receipt of said request signal and said predetermined time (Paragraph 0165 discloses “The RAR may provide the TA. The timing offset estimated by the WTRU may be considered to be an initial coarse estimate, and the timing advance TA provided with the RAR may be considered to be a fine estimate. The total (i.e., effective) timing advance may be obtained by combining the coarse timing offset estimate by the WTRU, with the finer TA provided by the gNB in the RAR); and circuitry configured to determine whether said received response is a response to said request from said timing advance indication, said timing offset and said determined timing advance (Paragraph 0169 and FIG.11 at step 1108 discloses “the WTRU may obtain the TA from the RACH response. At 1110, the WTRU may combine the derived timing offset with the received TA and use it for UL transmissions). Regarding claim 3, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said circuitry configured to provide said timing offset comprises circuitry configured to select one of a plurality of predetermined timing offsets (Paragraph 0165 discloses that “…the WTRU may have access to GPS or other global navigation satellite system (GNSS) services. … the WTRU may be able to obtain its own location information through these systems and use it to estimate the timing offset for adjusting its PRACH transmission prior to receiving a TA command from a base station (i.e., a gNB)”. This indicates that the estimated timing offset is based on the WTRU’s location and hence as the WTRU moves a new timing offset is to calculated and used for the PRACH transmission. Additionally paragraph 0198 discloses “ In this case, four different cover codes of {1,1}, {1,−1}, {−1,1}, {−1,−1} may respectively indicate PRACH timing offsets of 0, 0.5 ms, 1 ms, 1.5 ms, respectively.”). Regarding claim 6, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each of said plurality of predetermined timing offsets are less than a time period during which said request can be correctly received at said destination ( Paragraph 0168 discloses “The WTRU may derive the timing offset 1006 based on the knowledge of its location and knowledge of the location (or trajectory) of the satellite and may apply it to the PRACH transmission… This way the PRACH transmission will be received on the WTRU's allocated PRACH time resource 1004 from the gNB perspective. This will enable the gNB to correctly detect the PRACH…”). Regarding claim 7, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein said plurality of timing offsets includes no offset, that is a timing offset of 0 seconds (Paragraph 0167 discloses “ In a case where the WTRU did not apply any timing offset for its PRACH transmission…”). Regarding claim 8, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, comprising circuitry configured to store said plurality of predetermined timing offsets (Paragraph 0059 discloses “In addition, the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132). Regarding claim 9, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, comprising a receiver configured to receive said plurality of predetermined timing offsets (Paragraph 0169 discloses “At 1108, the WTRU may obtain the TA from the RACH response. At 1110, the WTRU may combine the derived timing offset with the received TA and use it for UL transmissions.” Here as the Total Uplink TA = Estimated TA + Received TA, and as the estimated TA is based on the propagation delay between the WTRU and BS it is clear that that the Received TA value varies. This indicates that a plurality of timing values can be received by the Mobile Station). Regarding claim 10, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said circuitry configured to provide is configured to determine where a collision is unlikely and to select to apply no timing offset to said timing advance (Paragraphs 0168 and 0170 disclose respectively no timing offset, “1007 shows the PRACH 1012 without timing offset…”and “At 1202, a WTRU may receive higher layer signaling that indicates associated PRACH resources. In one scenario, there may not be a GPS assisted NTN, and at 1206 the WTRU may transmit PRACH in the associated resources.”). Regarding claim 12, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said request comprises a connection request and said response comprises a connection response (Paragraph 0192 discloses the RACH connection request and the RAR). Regarding claim 13, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry comprises: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus (Paragraph 0059 discloses the WTRU processor and memory). Regarding claim 14, Mahalingam et al. disclose a method comprising: generating a request; determining an expected time delay for transmission of said request to a destination; determining a timing advance required for said request to reach a destination at a predetermined time, said timing advance being determined in dependence upon said expected time delay; providing a timing offset; outputting said request for transmission towards said destination with said timing offset; and in response to receiving a response, said response comprising a timing advance indicator, said timing advance indicator indicating a difference in time between receipt of said request at said destination and said predetermined time, determining whether said received response is a response to said request in dependence upon said timing advance indicator, said timing offset and said determined timing advance (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #1). Regarding claim 15, Mahalingam et al. disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions which when executed by a processor on a user equipment cause said user equipment to perform the method according to claim 14 (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #13). Regarding claim 16, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus comprises a user equipment (Paragraph 0192 discloses “…a WTRU may transmit a first RACH message 1807 and wait for a RAR”). Regarding claim 17, Mahalingam et al. disclose the method according to claim 14, wherein said providing an offset comprises selecting one of a plurality of predetermined timing offsets (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #3). Regarding claim 19, Mahalingam et al. disclose the method according to claim 17, the method further comprising an initial determining whether a collision is unlikely and said selecting comprises selecting to apply no timing offset to said timing advance where it is determined that a collision is unlikely (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #10). Regarding claim 20, Mahalingam et al. disclose the method according to claim 14, wherein the determining said timing advance comprises: determining an expected time delay for transmission of said request signal to the destination (Paragraph 0165 discloses “…the WTRU may be able to obtain its own location information through these systems and use it to estimate the timing offset for adjusting its PRACH transmission prior to receiving a TA command from a base station (i.e., a gNB)”). Regarding claim 21, Mahalingam et al. disclose an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the apparatus at least to perform: generating a connection request; and determining a timing advance to be applied to a predetermined time of transmission of said connection request in order for said connection request to reach a destination at said predetermined time; determining an expected time delay for transmission of said request signal to said destination, said timing advance being determined in dependence upon said expected time delay; providing a timing offset; transmitting said connection request signal towards said destination with said timing offset; receiving a response from said destination, said response comprising a timing advance indication, said timing advance indication indicating a difference in time between receipt of said connection request and said predetermined time; determining from said timing advance indication, said timing offset and said determined timing advance whether said received response is a response to said connection request (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #1). Regarding claim 22, Kawasaki et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein said providing said timing offset comprises selecting one of a plurality of predetermined timing offsets (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #3). 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 4,5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam et al. (CN 112154707 A also published as US 20210029658 A1) in view of Kawasaki et al. (EP-2104393-A1). Regarding claim 4, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim1, further comprising circuitry configured to add said timing offset to said timing advance to generate an updated timing advance (Paragraph 0165 discloses “The total (i.e., effective) timing advance may be obtained by combining the coarse timing offset estimate by the WTRU, with the finer TA provided by the gNB in the RAR); wherein said transmitter is configured to transmit said request with said updated timing advance (Paragraph 0169 discloses “At 1110, the WTRU may combine the derived timing offset with the received TA and use it for UL transmissions.”); Mahalingam et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein said circuitry configured to determine whether said received response is said response to said request is configured to determine whether said selected timing offset and said indication of said timing advance differ by less than a predetermined amount However, in an analogous art, Kawasaki et al. teaches wherein said circuitry configured to determine whether said received response is said response to said request is configured to determine whether said selected timing offset and said indication of said timing advance differ by less than a predetermined amount (Paragraph 0054 discloses the determination of the difference between the TA information value and the TA estimated value and the comparison of the TA difference value with the threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kawasaki et al., to determine the difference between the TA information value and the TA estimated value and to the compare the TA difference value with the threshold value, in order to determine the accuracy of the TA estimated value. Regarding claim 5, Mahalingam et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said predetermined amount is an acceptable error in determining said expected time delay (Paragraph 0167 discloses “In a case where the WTRU did not apply any timing offset for its PRACH transmission, the gNB may receive the PRACH outside the WTRU's allocated PRACH time resource. This may result in the PRACH detection failure as well as interference to other uplink transmissions.”). Regarding claim 18, Mahalingam et al. disclose the method according to claim 14, the method further comprising adding said timing offset to said timing advance to generate an updated timing advance; said transmitting said request comprises transmitting said request with said updated timing advance to said destination; and said determining whether said received response is said response to said request comprises determining whether said timing offset and said indication of said timing advance differ by less than a predetermined amount (The limitations of this claim are rejected on the same grounds of rejection as claim #4) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on June 20th 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586. 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). /Samuel Dilan Rutnam/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 14, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592788
WAKE-UP RADIO HAVING SINGLE BIT CORRELATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581495
MODE 1 SIDELINK RESOURCE ALLOCATION UNDER NETWORK ENERGY SAVING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574149
FRER SUPPORT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OPERABLE AS TSN BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12512886
BEAMFORMING AND INTERFERENCE MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR MASSIVE MIMO UPLINK AND DOWNLINK IN O-RAN 7-2 COMPATIBLE BASE STATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12477431
FAST MASTER CELL GROUP (MCG) FAILURE RECOVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 41 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