Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/241,993

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RANDOM ACCESS IN REPETITION MODE IN WIRELESS MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Sep 04, 2023
Examiner
WEI, SIREN
Art Unit
2467
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Soenghun Kim
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
443 granted / 508 resolved
+29.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
523
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 508 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1, 21, 22 are pending. Response to Arguments The terminal disclaimer filed 2/25/26 is noted to be approved, and double patenting rejections are withdrawn accordingly. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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. Specifically, the amendments substantially change the scope of the claimed subject matter and necessitate new grounds of rejection with new citations of prior art. Rejections for similar independent and dependent claims are revised and/or maintained accordingly. 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 of this title, 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. 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. 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 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. Claim 1, 21, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US 2022/0150986) in view of He et al. (US 2022/0304074). For claim 1, Shih teaches: A method performed by a wireless device (see at least fig. 2, UE and BS may comprise processor/memory for communication), the method comprising: receiving system information of a cell, wherein the system information comprises first configuration information for normal uplink (NUL) (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier, thus may be for NUL/SUL) and second configuration information for supplementary uplink (SUL) (see at least 0400, network may transmit a second threshold in System Information; 0398-0399, the second threshold may be used to determine whether to perform coverage-enhanced RA, thus may be for NUL/SUL), and wherein the first configuration information comprises: a first threshold parameter related to uplink selection (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier), and wherein the second configuration information comprises: a second threshold parameter related to message 3 (msg3) repetition (see at least 0398-0400, the second threshold may be used to determine whether to perform coverage-enhanced RA; see at least 0385, “Alternatively and/or additionally, the coverage enhancement for the RA procedure may comprise one or more repetitions of Msg3”); selecting a SUL carrier for random access based on the first threshold parameter (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier, thus SUL carrier may be selected); determining that msg3 repetition is applicable for the random access based on the second threshold parameter (see at least 0398-0400, the second threshold may be used to determine whether to perform coverage-enhanced RA, thus coverage-enhanced RA (including Msg3 repetition) may be selected); transmitting a random access preamble and receiving a random access response (RAR) (see at least 0461, RA preamble may be transmitted and RA response may be received); and transmitting a message 3 based on the RAR (see at least 0461, Msg3 may be transmitted after Msg2/RAR is received). Shih does not explicitly teach: …a repetition number parameter related to a number of repetitions for msg3, or: transmitting a message 3 based on…and the repetition number parameter. He from an analogous art teaches (see at least claim 8, SIB may include a number of Msg3 repetitions). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate He to the system of Shih, so the SIB may include a number of Msg3 repetitions used for transmission, as suggested by He. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by allowing network to configure appropriate Msg3 repetitions (He claim 8). Claim 21 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar reasoning. Claim 22 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 from perspective of base station, and is rejected under similar reasoning. 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 SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /Siren Wei/ Patent Examiner Art Unit 2467
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 04, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Feb 25, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598641
CHANNEL ACCESS BASED ON MODE OF OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588057
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PERFORMING GROUPING FOR SENSING IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588068
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BASE STATION TO PERFORM RANDOM ACCESS PROCEDURE WITH REDUCED CAPABILITY TERMINAL USING A PLURALITY OF COMMON CONFIGURATIONS AND A SINGLE TIME ALIGNMENT TIMER IN MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588073
PHYSICAL RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT FOR INTER-CELL MULTIPLE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION POINT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580694
ACKNOWLEDGMENT REPORTING FOR MULTI-LINK TRANSMISSIONS
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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 508 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