Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/138,814

COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 25, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, BAO G
Art Unit
2461
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
5 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
256 granted / 350 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
71.9%
+31.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 350 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/31/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stern-Berkowitz (Pub No 20180316464) further in view of newly cited Rico (Pub No 20170332370) Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the 3 different retuning capabilities. The examiner relies on newly cited Rico to teach the limitations. 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern-Berkowitz (Pub No 20180316464) further in view of Rico (Pub No 20170332370) Regarding claim 1 and 3, Stern-Berkowitz teaches A method performed by a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate using any of a plurality of subbands, the method comprising: Controller; and a transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to: (controller and transceiver, para [0042]) transmitting to a base station, in a radio resource control (RRC) message, (interpreted as The retuning time may be configured via a higher layer signaling, see para [0301]. Also see higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling), see para [0320]) capability information including information indicating (interpreted as The different retuning time may be determined according to the intra-mode narrowband hopping and/or inter-mode narrowband hopping. For example, when a narrowband location is changed from a first narrowband to a second narrowband, a first retuning time (T_re1) may be used if the first and the second narrowbands may be a same mode of operation. A second retuning time (T_re2) may be used if the first and the second narrowbands may be a different mode of operation, see para [0301]) However Stern-Berkowitz does not teach one of three possible capabilities on retuning time for frequency hopping. Rico teaches one of three possible capabilities on retuning time for frequency hopping (interpreted as The UE switching capability information may include an indication of a 3 symbol switching time for CC1 to CC3, a 1 ms switching time from CC1 to CC4, a 2 ms switching time from CC2 to CC3, and that switching is not supported for CC2 to CC4, see para [0111) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the two different retuning times as taught by Stern-Berkowitz with the different retuning/switching times as taught by Rico since it would have been a design choice to include any plurality of switching times to accommodate the different parameters of the system. Regarding claim 2 and 4, Stern-Berkowitz teaches A method performed by base station configured to communicate with a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate using any of a plurality of subbands, the method comprising: Controller; and a transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to: (controller and transceiver, para [0042]) Receiving, from the UE, in a radio resource control (RRC) message, (interpreted as The retuning time may be configured via a higher layer signaling, see para [0301]. Also see higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling), see para [0320]) capability information including information indicating (interpreted as The different retuning time may be determined according to the intra-mode narrowband hopping and/or inter-mode narrowband hopping. For example, when a narrowband location is changed from a first narrowband to a second narrowband, a first retuning time (T_re1) may be used if the first and the second narrowbands may be a same mode of operation. A second retuning time (T_re2) may be used if the first and the second narrowbands may be a different mode of operation, see para [0301]) However Stern-Berkowitz does not teach one of three possible values on retuning capabilities for frequency hopping. Rico teaches one of three possible values on retuning capabilities for frequency hopping (interpreted as The UE switching capability information may include an indication of a 3 symbol switching time for CC1 to CC3, a 1 ms switching time from CC1 to CC4, a 2 ms switching time from CC2 to CC3, and that switching is not supported for CC2 to CC4, see para [0111) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the two different retuning times as taught by Stern-Berkowitz with the different retuning/switching times as taught by Rico since it would have been a design choice to include any plurality of switching times to accommodate the different parameters of the system. Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern-Berkowitz (Pub No 20180316464) further in view of Rico (Pub No 20170332370) and Kim (Pub No 20150365968) Regarding claim 5, 6, 7, 8, The method according to claim 1, however does not teach wherein the capability information includes the information per frequency band. Kim teaches wherein the capability information includes the information per frequency band (interpreted as UE capability information message including capability indicators indicating per-frequency band dynamic TDD operation supportabilities at step 1000, see para [0074]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the capability information taught by the capability information per frequency band with as taught by Kim with the motivation being to include metrics such as frequency for the frequency switching. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm. 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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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. /BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461 /HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 21, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 09, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2025
Response Filed
May 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593346
UPLINK INDICATION FOR FULL-DUPLEX OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587485
Adaptive Buffering in a Distributed System with Latency/Adaptive Tail Drop
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12532213
Communication Coordination and Reduced Processing Techniques for Enhanced Quality of Service Procedures
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12520165
METHOD BY WHICH UE PERFORMS INITIAL ACCESS TO BASE STATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12513742
CHANNEL DETECTION METHOD, COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+3.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 350 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