Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/273,022

COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 18, 2023
Examiner
CUMMING, WILLIAM D
Art Unit
2645
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1005 resolved
+27.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1034
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1005 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Interpretation In the context of patent claims, "at least one of A and B" generally means "at least one of A and at least one of B," requiring the presence of at least one of each element, not just one or the other. Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 PTAB Mar. 22, 2017 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 4, 13 recite the limitation "the other one of the AP MLD and the non-AP STA MLD". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the originator device is one of an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) and a non-AP station (STA) MLD. The recipient device is a AP MLD and the non-AP STA MLD. The first information the first information comprises the at least one TID, an initiator sub- field, and an MLD address. In combination with in a multi-link communication method, performed by an originator device initiating a session comprising determining a first message frame in any link of a plurality of links. Transmitting the first message frame to a recipient device responding to the session. The first message frame is configured for the recipient device to delete a session link that has been set up and corresponds to at least one traffic identifier (TID) and comprises first information. The MLD address corresponds to the at least one TID, and the MLD address is identified according to a value of the initiator subfield. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 25 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. 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. The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024. If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative. If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm. 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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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. WILLIAM D. CUMMING Primary Examiner Art Unit 2645 /WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598573
ENHANCED MULTI-SATELLITE DOWNLINK CONNECTIVITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587953
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND DEVICE USING UPF EVENT EXPOSURE SERVICE FOR CHARGING SERVICE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588091
MULTI-LINK COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581399
DYNAMIC eSIM CONFIGURATION BASED ON AVAILABLE Wi-Fi INTERNET BANDWIDTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581333
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GRANULAR NETWORK CONFIGURATION VIA NETWORK EXPOSURE FUNCTION
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
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1005 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month