Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/004,927

ACARS REPORT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 10, 2023
Examiner
SHAHEED, KHALID W
Art Unit
2643
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
SAFRAN
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
694 granted / 840 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
881
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 840 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 & 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection. Here, former 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections regarding the use of means plus function without structural relationships of elements has been withdrawn. Applicants have amended claims by replacing means with processor. However, “processor” would have been an acceptable structural relationship/support for ‘means’ of the ‘means plus function’. However, under the previous examination the term “processor” as support for means was not found. Furthermore, the term ‘processor’ is not found in the specification. As a result, a new first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been made in lieu of the omitted recitation and support for the term “processor” and “determining …a calculation of a cost index” by a “processor”. Regarding ‘Priority’, applicant filed Translation of Foreign Priority Documents on 1/8/2026. However, that document does not contain a translation of the foreign priority documents. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description does not provide support for “a processor”. The specification does not provide support for a processor “determining…a calculation of a cost index”. Claims 1, 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without recitation of , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The written description does not provide support for “a processor”. The specification does not provide support for a processor “determining…a calculation of a cost index”. Claims 1, 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The written description does not provide support for “a processor”. The specification does not provide support for a processor “determining…a calculation of a cost index”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 08, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587228
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR A NETWORK DEVICE TRANSCEIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581450
Wireless Communications Method and Related Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574792
PREDICTIVE TRANSMISSION RATE ADAPTATION IN WIRELESS NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574453
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD FOR PERFORMING COMMUNICATION CONNECTION WITH PERIPHERAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574775
EARLY MEASUREMENT REPORTING VERIFICATION FOR NON-CONNECTED MODE USER EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 840 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