Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/031,593

USER EQUIPMENTS, BASE STATIONS AND METHODS FOR JOINT BEAM MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 12, 2023
Examiner
JIANG, CHARLES C
Art Unit
2412
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
201 granted / 271 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
287
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 271 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 01-07-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4 to 6 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Zhang CN 108199819 and Liou US PG-Pub 2019-0230545. Response to Amendment Claims 4, 5, and 6 are pending. Claims 4, 5, and 6 are rejected 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. Claims 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, CN 108199819 A, Publication Date: 2018-06-22in view of Liou US PG-Pub 2019-0230545. For claim 6, Zhang teaches a communication method of a user equipment (UE), the communication method comprising: receiving first information, and second information (Zhang, Fig. 9, Step 902 and 904); receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (Fig. 6a teaches PDSCH, page 7/42, paragraph 76 teaches the improvement reduces PDCCH complexity through PDSCH modifications); and transmitting a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), (Zhang, page 10/42, Paragraph 82, “for example, the first transmission parameter is transmission parameter of number is 14 according to Table 1, when the interval of the DCI and the PDSCH resource indication domain less than K, PUCCH can use number in Table 1 is 14 bit field and the number 17 bit field 5 to indicate up to from 32 selecting one of the PUCCH resources in the PUCCH resource”); wherein the first information indicates one or more TCI states (Zhang, Table 1) the second information indicates a presence of a TCI field in downlink control information (DCI) carried by the PDCCH (DCI carried by PDCCH is well understood in the art. Zhang, Table 1, Element 17, TCI indication field, page 16/42, paragraph 0129, “DCI of DL-Grant information the first control signaling associated with the CORESET TCI-PresentInDCI parameters for configuring the CORESET sent in the presence of TCI indication domain, namely whether the indication domain number in Table 1 is 17, for example, when CORESTE associated with TCI-PresentInDCI enabled, then the CORESET does not exist in the TCI field in the DCI”; Zhang’s invention seems to be removing the presence indicator in PDCCH to provide additional fields for PDSCH manipulation to improve communication robustness, See Table 2. This seems to read on the claims), and the PUCCH is transmitted with a spatial filter based on a TCI state indicated by the DCI in a case that the TCI field in the DCI is present (Zhang, Table 9 teaches TCI State-n and QCL types. QCL or quasi common access location is commonly used for spatial parameters, page 18/42, pargraph 146; the following citation were presented in previous office actions and included: Table 1, page 10/42, Paragraph 82, “for example, the first transmission parameter is transmission parameter of number is 14 according to Table 1, when the interval of the DCI and the PDSCH resource indication domain less than K, PUCCH can use number in Table 1 is 14 bit field and the number 17 bit field 5 to indicate up to from 32 selecting one of the PUCCH resources in the PUCCH resource” Fig. 8a also illustrates terminal signaling to base station CORESET information). Furthermore, in the analogous art of 5G communication, Liou, paragraph 414 teaches PUCCH Spatial Relations Info is a TCI-state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to implement the TCI state of Liou for PUCCH spatial relations into the TCI state of Zhang. Both inventions are about Quasi Co-location (QCL) Information, to improve robust signaling in 5G networks. For claims 4 and 5, they claim the identical method of claim 6. The differences between claims 4 and 5 on one hand versus claim 6 are claims 4 and 5 include a higher layer circuitry, and transmission circuitry, and a receiving circuitry. Zhang, Fig. 11 shows a first determination module 112 (higher layer circuitry) and a first sending module 114 (transmission circuitry). Zhang Fig 12 shows a second determination module 122 (higher layer circuitry) and receiving module 124(receiving circuitry). Therefore claims 4 and 5 are rejected under the same grounds as claim 6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles C Jiang whose telephone number is (571)270-7191. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 am to 5 pm Eastern Time. 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, TC Group director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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. /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2023
Application Filed
May 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588085
PLATFORM INDEPENDENT CLIENT FRAMEWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574878
NETWORK DEVICE AND METHOD OF PREVENTING TIMING LOOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568530
Triggered TXOP Sharing (TXS) Time Termination
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563594
USING A STOP INDICATION FOR PHYSICAL UPLINK SHARED CHANNEL TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563633
DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
74%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+22.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 271 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