Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/271,711

MODIFYING MEASUREMENT REPORTING BEHAVIOUR AT A REMOTE WTRU BASED ON A LINK QUALITY INDICATION ASSOCIATED WITH A LINK BETWEEN A RELAY WTRU AND A NETWORK

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 11, 2023
Examiner
KAVLESKI, RYAN C
Art Unit
2412
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 604 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
635
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 604 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION In response to communication filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 16-30 are rejected. 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 Amendments This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 11/24/2025. Claims 16-30 remain pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoffersson et al. (US Pub. 2023/0147090)(C1 hereafter) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2018/0255473)(K1 hereafter). Regarding claims 16 and 23, C1 teaches a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)(i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 2; 300a] comprising: a processor [refer Fig. 11; 310][paragraph 0146] configured to: receive configuration information [paragraph 0055], the configuration information comprises a set of measurement reporting conditions (i.e. trigger)[paragraph 0061]; receive a link quality indication from a second WTRU [refer Fig. 2; 200d], the link quality indication is associated with a link between the second WTRU and a network [paragraph 0080]; perform a measurement [paragraph 0074]; determine that the selected measurement reporting condition [paragraph 0076] is satisfied based on the performed measurement [paragraph 0077]; and send, based on a determination that the measurement reporting condition is satisfied [paragraph 0077], a measurement report to the network [paragraph 0078]. However, C1 fails to disclose the configuration information comprises a set of measurement reporting conditions, and each measurement reporting condition in the set of measurement reporting conditions is associated with a respective backhaul link quality (i.e. trigger) and selecting a measurement reporting condition from the set of measurement reporting conditions based on the link quality indication and the respective backhaul link qualities. K1 discloses that a terminal receives a measurement configuration from a base station [paragraph 0067] in which the configuration comprises of a measurement identity that links more than one measurement object to a reporting configuration, allowing for a report to indicate a specific measurement object for a measurement result to be triggered [paragraph 0071], a reporting condition consisting of a trigger quantity can be RSSI, channel utilization and backhaul rates (i.e. backhaul link quality)[paragraph 0201]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for obtaining backhaul link quality for initiating measurement reporting [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate multiple triggering events for measurement reporting as taught by K1 [refer K1; paragraph 0009]. One would be motivated to do so to prevent unnecessary measurement result reporting [refer K1; paragraph 0018]. Regarding claims 17 and 24, C1 in view of K1 teaches the respective backhaul link quality is a respective backhaul link quality value [paragraph 0060]. Regarding claim 18, C1 teaches the measurement [paragraph 0076] is performed based on measurement information indicated by the configuration information [paragraph 0073]. Regarding claim 19, C1 teaches the selected measurement reporting condition (i.e. triggered mobility measurement)[paragraph 0073] is associated with a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) threshold, or a received signal to noise indicator (RSNI) (i.e. SINR) threshold [paragraph 0076]. Regarding claim 20, C1 teaches the link quality indication is associated with a radio measurement [paragraph 0080], the radio measurement is a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), or a received signal to noise indicator (RSNI)(i.e. SINR)[paragraph 0043]. Regarding claim 21, C1 fails to disclose the link quality indication is associated with a load condition of the link between the second WTRU and the network. K1 discloses that trigger quantities for the reporting of a measurement can include wireless channel information and load information, which includes utilization and station count [paragraph 0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 to incorporate multiple triggering events for measurement reporting as taught by K1 [refer K1; paragraph 0009]. One would be motivated to do so to prevent unnecessary measurement result reporting [refer K1; paragraph 0018]. Regarding claims 22 and 27, C1 teaches the performed measurement is associated with a neighbor link and a link between the first WTRU and the second WTRU [paragraph 0055], and the neighbor link is a link between the first WTRU and a third WTRU or a link between the first WTRU and the network [refer Fig. 1]. Regarding claim 25, C1 teaches the measurement [paragraph 0076] is performed based on measurement information indicated by the configuration information [paragraph 0073]. However, C1 fails to disclose the link quality indication is associated with a load condition of the link between the second WTRU and the network. K1 discloses that trigger quantities for the reporting of a measurement can include wireless channel information and load information, which includes utilization and station count [paragraph 0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 to incorporate multiple triggering events for measurement reporting as taught by K1 [refer K1; paragraph 0009]. One would be motivated to do so to prevent unnecessary measurement result reporting [refer K1; paragraph 0018]. Regarding claim 26, C1 teaches the selected measurement reporting condition (i.e. triggered mobility measurement)[paragraph 0073] is associated with a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) threshold, or a received signal to noise indicator (RSNI) (i.e. SINR) threshold [paragraph 0076], the link quality indication is associated with a radio measurement [paragraph 0080], and the radio measurement is an RSRP, an RSRQ, or an RSNI [paragraph 0043]. Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view Sebire et al. (US Pub. 2012/0295606)(S1 hereafter). Regarding claim 28, C1 teaches a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 2; 300a] comprising: a processor [refer Fig. 11; 310][paragraph 0146] configured to: receive configuration information [paragraph 0055], the configuration information indicates a measurement reporting condition (i.e. trigger)[paragraph 0061]; receive a link quality indication from a second WTRU [refer Fig. 2; 200d], the link quality indication is associated with a link between the second WTRU and a network [paragraph 0080]; perform a measurement [paragraph 0074]; determine that the measurement reporting condition is satisfied based on the performed measurement (upon having performed measurements, the measurements are reported to the network node (i.e. reporting condition being to measure mobility measurements))[paragraph 0077]; and send, based on a determination that the measurement reporting condition is satisfied (i.e. measurements have been made regarding qualities [paragraph 0076], a measurement report to the network (upon having performed the measurements (i.e. the condition is satisfied), the measurements are then reported [paragraph 0077], the UE sends the report to the network node [paragraph 0078]). However, C1 fails to disclose determine a scaled measurement reporting condition, the scaled measurement reporting condition is determined based on applying a scaling factor to the measurement reporting condition, and the scaling factor is associated with the link quality indication, the scaled measurement reporting condition being determined as satisfied. S1, in the field of measurement reporting based upon signal level and quality for a cell (i.e. link quality) [paragraph 0026], discloses that a base station may send to a UE measurement reporting that should be initiated, including a reporting threshold (i.e. condition), the message also indicating whether a scaling factor should be used by the user equipment to scale measured values [paragraph 0061], the scaling factor is used on measured quantities [paragraph 0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for reporting measurements of various qualities [refer C1; paragraph 0076] to incorporate a reporting threshold that uses one or more scaling factors to scale the one or more measurements as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to normalize dynamic ranges for different types of measurement values [refer S1; paragraph 0043]. Regarding claim 29, C1 fails to disclose that the scaling factor is received from the second WTRU or the network. S1, in the field of measurement reporting based upon signal level and quality for a cell (i.e. link quality) [paragraph 0026], discloses that a base station may send to a UE measurement reporting that should be initiated, including a reporting threshold (i.e. condition), the message also indicating whether a scaling factor should be used by the user equipment to scale measured values [paragraph 0061], the scaling factor is used on measured quantities [paragraph 0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for reporting measurements of various qualities [refer C1; paragraph 0076] to incorporate a reporting threshold that uses one or more scaling factors to scale the one or more measurements as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to normalize dynamic ranges for different types of measurement values [refer S1; paragraph 0043]. Regarding claim 30, C1 fails to disclose determining the scaling factor based on the link quality indication. S1, in the field of measurement reporting based upon signal level and quality for a cell (i.e. link quality) [paragraph 0026], discloses that a base station may send to a UE measurement reporting that should be initiated, including a reporting threshold (i.e. condition), the message also indicating whether a scaling factor should be used by the user equipment to scale measured values [paragraph 0061], the scaling factor is used on measured quantities [paragraph 0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for reporting measurements of various qualities [refer C1; paragraph 0076] to incorporate a reporting threshold that uses one or more scaling factors to scale the one or more measurements as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to normalize dynamic ranges for different types of measurement values [refer S1; paragraph 0043]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Sebire et al. (US Pub. 2012/0295606) as noted in the above rejection of claims 28-30 accordingly. Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 16 and 23, applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach the claim limitations, namely, “selecting a measurement reporting condition from the set of measurement reporting conditions based on the link quality indication and the respective backhaul link qualities.” In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, C1 is directed towards explicitly obtaining information about backhaul link quality of a wireless backhaul link [C1; Abstract][paragraph 0051], indications of performing measurements on signals are received from the network [C1; paragraph 0075], performing a particular type of measurement relating to one or more wireless links [C1; paragraph 0076] and after performing the measurements, reporting the measurement [C1; paragraph 0077] to a network [paragraph 0078]. Although C1 provides support for indications for performing measurements [C1; paragraph 0076], there is no explicit support within C1 for configuration information to comprise of a set of (i.e. multiple) measurement reporting conditions, and each measurement reporting condition in the set of measurement reporting conditions is associated with a respective backhaul link quality (i.e. trigger) and selecting a measurement reporting condition from the set of measurement reporting conditions based on the link quality indication and the respective backhaul link qualities. Therefore K1 was cited for disclosing that a terminal receives a measurement configuration from a base station [K1; paragraph 0067] in which the configuration comprises of a measurement identity that links more than one measurement object to a reporting configuration (i.e. reporting condition), allowing for a report to indicate a specific measurement object for a measurement result to be triggered (i.e. selecting one measurement condition)[K1; paragraph 0071], a reporting condition consisting of a trigger quantity can be RSSI, channel utilization and backhaul rates (i.e. the claimed respective backhaul link quality) [K1; paragraph 0201]. Accordingly, examiner reasoned based upon this disclosure that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for to incorporate more than one triggering events for measurement reporting as taught by K1 [refer K1; paragraph 0009]. The motivation being that one would be motivated to do so to prevent unnecessary measurement result reporting [refer K1; paragraph 0018]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Conclusion If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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. Ryan Kavleski /R.C.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587291
ANTENNA DIVERSITY IMPLEMENTATION FOR REMOTE SENSORS IN AN HVAC SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581519
Sidelink Resource Selection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574776
Information Transmission Method and Related Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574127
PRIORITIZATION OF SERVICE GAPS IN A WIRELESS NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568024
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A SINGLE LOGICAL IP SUBNET ACROSS MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT LAYER 2 (L2) SUBNETS IN A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 604 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