Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/292,467

Communication Method, and Base Station

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Examiner
LY, ANH VU H
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
China Mobile Communications Group Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
933 granted / 1047 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1076
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1047 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Objections Claims 11, 23, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, in line 3, replace “a terminal type” with --a type of a terminal--. Claim 23, in line 6, replace “the terminal type” with --the type of the terminal--. Claim 30, in line 2, replace “the processor” with --the second processor--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 6, 13, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2024/0155580 A1). Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a communication method, performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving at least two groups of configurations sent by a base station (Fig. 4, network side device transmits configuration information); wherein each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise carrier information or bandwidth part (BWP) information representing a carrier or a BWP configured by a network side for a specific terminal for a communication, a specific slice, or a specific service (Fig. 3 and 166th paragraph, the network side device configures different separate initial BWPs for UEs with different capability characteristics. The network configures BWP #0-1 for RedCap UEs and configures BWP #0-2 for non-RedCap UEs/common terminals, where BWP #0-1 and BWP #0-2 do not fully overlap for frequency domain resources). Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses that wherein each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise at least one of: a frequency of the carrier; a frequency of the BWP (Fig. 3); or a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block (SSB)-based measurement timing configuration (SMTC) period. Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a communication method, performed by a base station, comprising: sending at least two groups of configurations (Fig. 4, network side device transmits configuration information); wherein each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise carrier information or bandwidth part (BWP) information representing a carrier or a BWP configured by a network side for a specific terminal for a communication, a specific slice, or a specific service (Fig. 3 and 166th paragraph, the network side device configures different separate initial BWPs for UEs with different capability characteristics. The network configures BWP #0-1 for RedCap UEs and configures BWP #0-2 for non-RedCap UEs/common terminals, where BWP #0-1 and BWP #0-2 do not fully overlap for frequency domain resources). Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses a base station (268th paragraph and Fig. 8), comprising: a second processor (Fig. 8, processor 801) and a second memory for storing a computer program (Fig. 8, memory 802) executable by the processor; wherein the second processor is configured to perform the steps of the method of claim 13 when running the computer programs (see claim 13 rejections). 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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. The factual inquiries 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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kuang et al (US Patent No. 12,520,203 B2). Regarding claims 7 and 19, Wang discloses BWP configurations for reduced capability UEs and legacy UEs (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose receiving second information sent by the base station; wherein the second information is used to instruct the terminal to use at least one of: a first access priority parameter, or a second access priority parameter. Kuang discloses that the DU of the network device can properly allocate an access priority of the reduced capability terminal device (col. 19, lines 37-38. Herein, the access priority is set to low priority). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allocate an access priority to a type of a terminal device in Wang’s system, as suggested by Kuang, to optimize network performance of reduced capability terminal device. Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hoglund al (US 2024/0389152 A1). Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses BWP configurations for reduced capability UEs and legacy UEs (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose sending third information to the base station; wherein the third information is used to instruct a terminal type, and the third information is carried in a MSG 1, a MSG 3 or a MSG A to be sent. Hoglund discloses that RedCap UEs (reduced capability UEs) may need to include a RedCap indication in MSG 3 (92nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RedCap indication in MSG 3 in Wang’s system, as suggested by Hoglund to prioritize responses among UEs. Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses configuring different groups of random access resources for different types of terminals (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose determining a terminal type of a terminal based on a preamble of a MSG 1 or a MSG A sent by the terminal or random-access (RACH) Occasion (RO) resources, and/or based on third information carried in the MSG 1, a MSG 3, or the MSG A sent by the terminal; and the third information is used to instruct the terminal type. Hoglund discloses that RedCap UEs (reduced capability UEs) may need to include a RedCap indication in MSG 3 (92nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RedCap indication in MSG 3 in Wang’s system, as suggested by Hoglund to prioritize responses among UEs. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 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 Chatterjee et al (US 2024/0196413 A1), same field of endeavor, discloses BWP operations for RedCap UEs (Fig. 6). Mozaffari et al (US 2024/0155613 A1), same field of endeavor, discloses PUCCH configurations for reduced capability UEs (Figs. 5-11). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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. ANH VU H. LY Primary Examiner Art Unit 2472 /ANH VU H LY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604292
RELAY COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598032
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING VOICE DATA, AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598498
Measuring a Reference Signal with Associated Synchronization Signal
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588048
COLLISION HANDLING FOR MULTIPLE TRANSMIT RECEIVE POINTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581537
CHANNEL OCCUPANCY TIME DETERMINATION METHOD, FIRST COMMUNICATION NODE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-0.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1047 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