Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/216,920

USER MOBILITY METHOD AND DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 30, 2023
Examiner
CHRISS, ANDREW W
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 208 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
267
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 208 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 December 2025 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 December 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 5 September 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Applicant’s response, filed 4 December 2025 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-3 are amended and currently pending. The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 1-3 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 claims contain 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. Citations to Applicant’s specification herein are taken from the instant application’s pre-grant publication (2023/0345312). Claims 1-3 have been amended to recite the language (emphasis added) “the RRC message including a first parameter of an enumerated type and a second parameter of the enumerated type, the first parameter indicating whether a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity is to be reestablished and the second indication parameter indicating whether a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity is to be reestablished.” This newly added language regarding the parameters related to RLC or PDCP entity re-establishment being of an “enumerated type” finds no support in Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and therefore constitutes new matter. The specification refers to enumerated parameters in the following sections: Related to capability information of the UE supporting a conditional handover (paragraph 0241): [0242] Conditionalhandover-rxx ENUMERATED {supported} Related to capability information of the UE about supporting the UE-based mobility (paragraph 0246): [0247] UE-based mobility-rxx ENUMERATED{supported} … [0249] Connected-cell-reselection-rxx ENUMERATED{supported}. Related to handover indication sent by a UE (first described in paragraph 0331): [0340] In another embodiment, the indication information may be included in the report configuration or the measurement object configuration or the measurement identifier configuration, through which the UE considers that the measurement configuration corresponding to the reporting configuration or the measurement object configuration or the measurement identifier is used as the first condition. The indication information may be of an enumerated type or a boolean type, such as conditionalhandover ENUMERATED{true}. [0341] In another embodiment, indication information is included in an RRC message including a handover command, and is particularly included in the mobility control IE, and the UE considers, on the basis of the indication information, that the handover is performed based on the first condition, that is, the handover is performed after the first condition is satisfied. The indication information may be of an enumerated type or a boolean type, such as conditionalhandover ENUMERATED{true}. However, there is no mention of parameters relating to RLC or PDCP entity re-establishment being of an enumerated type. While paragraphs [0345] and [0346] of the specification refer to the RRC message “indicating” whether PDCP and RLC need to be reestablished, these paragraphs are silent as to how this need is indicated (e.g., a specific format or content). Therefore, the newly added language regarding the parameters related to RLC or PDCP entity re-establishment being of an “enumerated type”, as well as the message comprising parameters that lead to the intended result, finds no support in Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and therefore constitutes new matter. 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0142361), hereinafter Zhao. Regarding Claim 1, Zhao discloses a method performed by a base station, the method comprising: transmitting a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to a User Equipment (UE), the RRC message including a first parameter of an enumerated type and a second parameter of the enumerated type, the first parameter indicating whether a Radio Link Control (RLC) entity is to be reestablished and the second parameter indicating whether a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) entity is to be reestablished (Figures 7 and 8, paragraphs 0085 and 0092 – the network side device transmits RRC connection reconfiguration to a UE comprising configuration parameters that either do not trigger re-establishment of the PDCP or RLC entities (paragraph 0092) or trigger PDCP and RLC entity re-establishment (paragraph 0085), wherein: the UE reestablishes the RLC entity in a case that the first parameter indicates that the RLC entity is to be reestablished (paragraph 0085 - the re-establishment parameters trigger RLC entity re-establishment), the UE forgoes reestablishing the RLC entity in a case that the first indication parameter indicates that the RLC entity is not to be reestablished (paragraph 0092 – RLC is not re-established), the UE reestablishes the PDCP entity in a case that the second parameter indicates that the PDCP entity is to be reestablished (paragraph 0085 – PDCP is reestablished), and the UE forgoes reestablishing the PDCP entity in a case that the second parameter indicates that the PDCP entity is not to be reestablished (paragraph 0092 – PDCP is not re-established). Claim 2 is directed to a base station comprising transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the RRC message as claimed in Claim 1. Zhao discloses a network side device (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0104-0107) comprising a sending module 1002 that sends RRC connection reconfiguration message to the UE. The limitations regarding the RRC message are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1. Claim 3 is directed to a UE comprising receiving circuitry configured to receive the RRC message from a base station as claimed in Claim 1. Zhao discloses a UE (Figure 11 and paragraphs 0113-0114) comprising a receiving module 1101 that receives RRC connection reconfiguration message sent from the network side device. The limitations regarding the RRC message are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET. 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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. /ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 11, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Aug 14, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593235
ANALYTICS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574793
First Network Node, Second Network Node and Methods in a Wireless Communications Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562805
BEAM MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556340
SEPARATE HYBRID AUTOMATIC RECEIPT REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR DOWNLINK TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507218
CONTROL PLANE MESSAGE FOR SLOT INFORMATION CONVEYANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.1%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 208 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