Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/117,132

RADIO COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, RADIO TERMINAL APPARATUS, AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR INCREASING TXOPS OBTAINMENT OPPORTUNITIES, ENHANCING TRANSMISSION EFFICIENCY, AND REDUCING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 03, 2023
Examiner
ELLIOTT IV, BENJAMIN H
Art Unit
2474
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
1055 granted / 1189 resolved
+30.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1221
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1189 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 12 and 13 have been examined and are pending. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment 3. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 1/22/2026, the Office acknowledges the current status of the claims: claims 12 and 13 have been amended, and no new matter appears to be included. Response to Arguments 4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference citation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0249397 A1 to Seok (hereinafter “Seok”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0037395 A1 to Ko et al. (hereinafter “Ko”). Regarding Claim 12, Seok discloses a first terminal apparatus (Seok: Figure 1) comprising: a receiver (Seok: Figure 1, 22) configured to receive a reception frame (Seok: Figure 21, S2110); and a transmitter (Seok: Figure 1, 21) configured to transmit a transmission frame (Seok: Figure 21, S2120), wherein the first terminal apparatus is configured to: perform a communication with a base station apparatus (Seok: Figure 21, S2101 and S2110), perform a direct communication with a second terminal apparatus (Seok: Figure 21. S2170 and S2180), transmit, from the transmitter, to the base station apparatus, the transmission frame which comprises configuration information of the direct communication between the first terminal apparatus and the second terminal apparatus (Seok: [0296-0299], Figure 21, steps S2110 through S2140 describing identities of the first and second STA shared with the AP.), and receive, at the receiver, from the base station apparatus, the reception frame which comprises an identifier associated with the direct communication between the first terminal apparatus and the second terminal apparatus (Seok: Figure 21 with [0296-0299] – corresponds to steps S2140 through S2180 in which the first STA receives the direct link setup response including a third color parameter (indication/identification) from the AP describing the exchange of colors (IDs) of the first and second STAs for direct communication.). Although Seok explicitly discloses receiving an identifier associated with direct communication between first and second terminal apparatuses, Seok does not expressly disclose the identifier is generated by the base station apparatus and used for the direct communication with the second apparatus. However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Ko. Ko is similarly concerned with direct link communications within a basic service set (BSS) (Ko: [0009-0010]). Ko discloses an identifier is generated by the base station apparatus and used for the direct communication with the second apparatus (The limitation is interpreted to correspond to a generated identifier, by a base station, for the communication between the first and second terminal apparatuses, or the base station and any one of a first or second terminal device, as disclosed by Ko in at least [0085], [0130] – a base wireless communication terminal (or base station/access point) sets (or generates) the BSS color for the BSSID in which another wireless terminal may communicate directly with the base station/access point/base wireless communication terminal.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the apparatus of Seok in view of the apparatus of Ko to include an identifier generated by a base station apparatus and used for the direct communication with a second apparatus for the reasons of easily and efficiently identifying a channel for use between terminals (Ko: [0006-0007]). Claim 13, directed to a method embodiment of claim 12, recites similar features as claim 12 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 12. Please see above rejection of claim 12. Conclusion 10. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT). 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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. BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV Primary Examiner Art Unit 2474 /BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 03, 2023
Application Filed
May 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603690
Beam Failure Detection and Recovery for Deactivated Secondary Cell Group (SCG)
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587308
CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF FOR ADAPTING DOWNLINK OR UPLINK TRANSMISSION PARAMETERS TO RADIO LINK CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587335
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REFERENCE SIGNALING FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580631
QCL RELATIONSHIP DETERMINATION METHOD AND DEVICE, NODE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580690
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO REALIZE HIGH COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
89%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-0.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1189 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