Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/260,007

CHANNEL STATE FEEDBACK FOR ENHANCED DYNAMIC SPECTRUM SHARING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 29, 2023
Examiner
LA, PHONG
Art Unit
2469
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
435 granted / 488 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
518
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
56.6%
+16.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 488 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in reply communication filed on 10/30/2025. Claims 22-29 and 42-53 are pending. Claims 1-21 and 30-41 are cancelled. Claims 42-53 are new. 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 . Election/Restriction Claims 1-21 and 30-41 withdraw/cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected of 3 inventions covered by the claims indicated as claims 1-16 directed to real time rate matching, claims 17-19 directed to UE capability, claims 20-21 directed to NR-PDCCH, claims 30-38 directed to estimating efficient for a plurality of RMI, and claims 39-41 directed to activating rate matching pattern, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/2025, Claim Objections Claims 22-53 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22 and 50 recited, “A method comprising:” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “A methods for configuring or utilizing rate matching patterns and interference measurements, the method comprising:”. Claim 42 recited, “An apparatus comprising:” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “An apparatus for configuring or utilizing rate matching patterns and interference measurements, the apparatus comprising:”. All dependent claims are also objected based on dependency. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 22-23, 42-43, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0392668) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2020/0382354). Regarding claim 22, Yoon discloses a method of operating a base station [See Fig. 11, 15, ¶¶ 138- 142, 178-216; a method of operating a BS], the method comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) in a cell of a first radio access technology (RAT), one or more messages to configure an interference measurement [See ¶¶ 140, 179; transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) in NR system/(first RAT) CSI/beam configuration/CSI-related configuration information to configure interference measurement] based on a channel state information (CSI) interference measurement resource (IMR) that corresponds to a reference signal of a second RAT [See ¶¶ 180-185; based on CSI-IM-based IM resource (IMR) that corresponds/similarly to a CSI-IM in LTE/(second RAT)]; receiving, from the UE, an indication of one or more neighbor cell (NC)-reference signal receive power (RSRP) values that corresponds to the CSI IMR [See Fig. 11, ¶¶ 142, 160, 190-191; receiving, from the UE, an indication of one or more neighbor cell (NC)-reference signal receive power (RSRP) values that corresponds to the CSI IMR (UE reports the best SSBRI and the RSRP corresponding to the best SSBRI to the BS)]; selecting a rate matching pattern [See ¶ 190; configured independently of a zero power (ZP) CSI-RS resource for PDSCH rate matching]. Yoon does not explicitly disclose selecting a rate matching pattern “based on the one or more NC-RSRP values”; and scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission based on the rate matching pattern. However, Sengupta discloses selecting a rate matching pattern based on the one or more NC-RSRP values [See ¶¶ 157, 161; determining (selecting) one or more LTE CRS patterns to rate match around using parameters, wherein the parameters are configured via higher layer signaling for each ZP CSI-RS resource configuration, See ¶¶ 134-137]; and scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission based on the rate matching pattern [See ¶¶ 34, 115, 121, 157; scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) DL transmission based on the rate matching pattern, ¶ 137]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “selecting a rate matching pattern based on the one or more NC-RSRP values; and scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission based on the rate matching pattern” as taught by Sengupta in the system of Yoon, so that it would provide spectrum sharing among 5G/NR and LTE RATs that prevent or avoid reference signal collisions between these two RATs [See Sengupta; ¶ 3]. Regarding claim 23, the combined system of Yoon and Sengupta discloses the method of claim 22. Yoon further discloses wherein transmitting the one or more messages comprises: providing a CSI resource information element (IE) to configure the CSI IMR for measurement [See ¶ 142; providing a CSI resource information element (IE) to configure the CSI IMR for measurement]; and providing a CSI report IE that references the CSI resource IE to configure a report based on the CSI IMR [See ¶ 142; providing the reports of the best SSBRI and the RSRP corresponding to the best SSBR]. Regarding claims 42-43, the claims recite an apparatus comprising: interface circuitry and processing circuitry (See Fig. 25, ¶ 360; first wireless device 100 include one or more processors 102 and one or more memories 104, and further include one or more transceivers 106 and/or one or more antennas 108) to perform the method steps recited as in claims 22-23 respectively; therefore, claims 42-43 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 22-23 respectively. Regarding claims 50-51, the claims recite a method to perform the method steps recited as in claims 22-23 respectively; therefore, claims 50-51 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 22-23 respectively. Claims 27 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2021/0392668) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2020/0382354), and further in view of KIM et al. (WO 2020/166976). Regarding claim 27, the combined system of Yoon and Sengupta discloses the method of claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more NC-RSRP values comprises a layer-1 value. However, KIM discloses wherein the one or more NC-RSRP values comprises a layer-1 value [See page 13 lines 12-15, wherein the CSI calculation, and L1 (layer 1)-RSRP (reference signal received). power) is used for computation and mobility]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more NC-RSRP values comprises a layer-1 value” as taught by KIM in the combined system of Yoon and Sengupta, so that it would provide setting different rate matching or puncturing of resources related to DMRS in partially overlapped resources and non-overlapping resources, loss of resources for data can be reduced, and resource efficiency [See KIM; page 4 lines 48-49]. Regarding claim 47, the claim recites the apparatus of claim 42 to perform the method step recited as in claim 27; therefore, claim 47 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 27. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 24-26, 28-29, 44-46, 48-49, and 52-53 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 In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, Hao et al. (US 2021/0297121) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 22, 42, and 50 (See ZHOU; Fig. 5, ¶¶ 39-42). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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. /PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598036
BEAM REPORTING ENHANCEMENT FOR SIMULTANEOUS IAB RECEPTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587901
COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581539
METHOD AND DEVICE IN NODES USED FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581464
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568508
MULTIPLE DCIS TRANSMITTED OVER PDSCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 488 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