Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/296,833

Autonomous Operation of User Equipment With Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Model Capability

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
MAGLOIRE, VLADIMIR
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
253 granted / 372 resolved
+16.0% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
384
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 372 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Specification 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 Amendment The amendment filed 1/27/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claims 8 and 14 recite the limitation “the hardware and/or software limitations being unrelated to model inference performance to support the AI/ML resources and/or the AI/ML functions”. The applicant’s original specification fails to disclose this feature, therefore the limitation “the hardware and/or software limitations being unrelated to model inference performance to support the AI/ML resources and/or the AI/ML functions” is considered new matter. . Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 8 and 14 (and corresponding dependent claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 8 and 14 recite the limitation “the hardware and/or software limitations being unrelated to model inference performance to support the AI/ML resources and/or the AI/ML functions”. The applicant’s original specification fails to disclose this feature, therefore the limitation “the hardware and/or software limitations being unrelated to model inference performance to support the AI/ML resources and/or the AI/ML functions” is considered new matter. Claims 8 and 14 recite the limitation “receive a first functionality configuration that includes a first plurality of AI/ML models, and a second functionality configuration that includes a second plurality of AI/ML models;”. The applicant’s original disclosure discloses sending to the UE a model configuration, the UE acts or doesn’t act on that model configuration, and then the network sends another model configuration. The added limitation “receive a first functionality configuration that includes a first plurality of AI/ML models, and a second functionality configuration that includes a second plurality of AI/ML models;” suggest that the UE is selects a model configuration it can select from several options. This is not stated in applicant’s specification. Therefore, the limitation “receive a first functionality configuration that includes a first plurality of AI/ML models, and a second functionality configuration that includes a second plurality of AI/ML models;” is considered new matter. 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 8 and 14 (and corresponding dependent) 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 8 and 14 each recite the limitation ““the hardware and/or software limitations being unrelated to model inference performance to support the AI/ML resources and/or the AI/ML functions”. The term unrelated is unclear. Unrelated in defined “not related or linked”. The term “unrelated” is not in or defined in applicant’s specification, therefore it is not possible to determine the level of unrelatedness. Therefore, claims 8 and 14 (and corresponding dependent claims) are indefinite. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F. 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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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. /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
May 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601835
RADAR DETECTION SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12574888
REQUEST PROCEDURE FOR POSITIONING REFERENCE SIGNALS FOR WIRELESS NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12538238
POWER EFFICIENT RADAR OPERATION FOR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE COMPLIANCE AND UPLINK POWER REDUCTION REPORTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12516556
VEHICLE OUTSIDE DOOR HANDLE WITH RADAR MODULE AND THERMAL MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12510626
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
68%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+22.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 372 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