Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/084,362

MANAGING INTERFERENCE FOR COEXISTENCE OF TERRESTRIAL AND NON-TERRESTRIAL WIRELESS NETWORKS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 19, 2022
Examiner
SHAHEED, KHALID W
Art Unit
2643
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BOOST SUBSCRIBERCO L.L.C.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
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

§102 §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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reis et al. (US 2021/0311201 A1). Regarding claims 1 & 11, computer-implemented method and system comprising: determining one or more frequency bands assigned to one or more adjacent satellite services (see [0095] adjacent satellite interference, which is based on frequency “spillover”), the one or more adjacent satellites serving one or more adjacent geographic regions to a reference geographic region served by a reference satellite (see [0095] adjacent satellite interference, which is based on frequency “spillover”); determining one or more interference characteristics of the one or more frequency bands used by the one or more adjacent satellite services (see RSSI, received signal strength indicator [0111]); selecting a frequency band for use by the reference satellite in the reference geographic region based on the one or more interference characteristics of the one or more frequency bands assigned to the one or more adjacent satellite services (see [0080], “ a communication satellite may be described as receiving and returning a message, but in detail the satellite may alter one or more signal transmission properties of the received message, such as by mixing the received signal with a signal from another oscillator, such that the “echoed message/signal” is returned over a different frequency band than the received frequency band (e.g., the incoming frequency band is different than the returned frequency band). ”), the selected frequency band being selected from a set of available frequency bands (can switch between multiple frequency bands [0188]) for non-terrestrial wireless communication with one or more wireless client devices (see satellite to wireless device in fig. 1); and instructing the reference satellite (see illustration any of satellites in fig. 1, see reference satellite [0049]) to use the selected frequency band for communication with the one or more wireless client devices in the reference geographic region (see referenced region, Location A in fig. 16). Regarding claims 3 & 13, discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein the one or more interference characteristics include: a proximity of the one or more frequency bands to the selected frequency band on a spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies (see [0072], “the signals used by the techniques herein, on the other hand, may be moved to different parts of the spectrum band as traffic or adversaries demand, where the protocol between the receiver and transmitter can negotiate the utilized band based on a number of factors (e.g., channel availability, for instance). ”). 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) 2 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis et al. (US 2021/0311201 A1) in view of Katsumata et al. (US 2020/0137678 A1). Regarding claims 2 & 12, Reis discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, Reis does not specifically disclose however Katsumata discloses further comprising: determining an arrangement of geographic regions based on a quantity of the set of available frequency bands (see [0039] preferable information to be taken into account when an appropriate slice is set, for example, there are the number of users to be housed, available frequency bands, available access modes, UE location information); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Katsumata with that of Reis. Doing so would conform to well known standards in the field of invention. Claim(s) 4 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis et al. (US 2021/0311201 A1) in view of Smyth et al. (US 2019/0028182 A1). Regarding claims 4 & 14, Reis discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3 and system of claim 13, Reis does not specifically disclose however Smyth discloses wherein the one or more interference characteristics include: an out of band emission associated with the one or more frequency bands used by the one or more adjacent satellite services (see [0218], out of band emission for adjacent channel bands); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Smyth with that of Reis. Doing so would conform to well known standards in the field of invention. Claim(s) 5 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis et al. (US 2021/0311201 A1) in view of Fan. (US 2011/0287775 A1). Regarding claims 5 & 15, Reis discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Reis does not specifically disclose however Fan discloses further comprising: determining one or more population densities of the one or more adjacent geographic regions (see [0004] frequency assignment, on each respective area, based on population), the one or more population densities reflecting a quantity of wireless client devices in the one or more adjacent geographic regions; selecting a first frequency band from the one or more frequency bands (see assignments) for a first adjacent geographic region of the one or more adjacent geographic regions based on the one or more population densities (see [0004] frequency assignment, on each respective area, based on population); and assigning the first frequency band to a first adjacent satellite of the one or more adjacent satellite services, the first adjacent satellite serving the first adjacent geographic region (see [0004] frequency assignment, on each respective area, based on population). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 6-10, 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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

Dec 19, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
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